President Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act

[Better Believe It]

Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act
by Dylan Blaylock
April 5, 2012

On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.

Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics. In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was "waterboarded" and that "waterboarding" was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA's torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA's torture program and the CIA's deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror.

Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.

"John Kiriakou is the new Thomas Drake," stated Radack, continuing, "And the case against Kiriakou is just as flimsy as the one against Drake. The Obama administration's unprecedented use of the Espionage Act to target whistleblowers sends a chilling message to any national security worker considering blowing the whistle on corruption and wrongdoing. The Espionage Act is an archaic World War I-era law intended to go after spies, not whistleblowers."

Read the full article at:

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/1893-obama-indicts-sixth-whistleblower-under-the-espionage-act


--------------------------------------------------------------------



National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) Condemns CIA Whistleblower Indictment
by Owen Dunn
April 6, 2012

The Department of Justice’s policy of distorting privacy laws to pursue and discredit whistleblowers continues. The Associated Press reported yesterday that a former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, is being charged with leaking classified information after publicly expressing concerns over the use of torture during interrogations.

In the indictment, the DOJ argues that because the interrogation “operation fell within the scope of a CIA counterterrorism program,” all details are therefore critical “national defense information.” Using this type of circular logic and vague, umbrella terminology is now standard practice for the Department of Justice as it works to hide serious legal and ethical allegations, including those made by Mr. Kiriakou in this case.

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, stated:

We condemn Mr. Kiriakou’s indictment. The First Amendment means what it says; freedom of speech exists in the United States regardless of the wishes of extremists at the DOJ and CIA who are using outrageous charges to attack whistleblowers. These charges should be dropped immediately, and an investigation should instead be made into those responsible for them.

http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/2012/04/articles/whistleblowers-government-empl/terrorism/nwc-condemns-cia-whistleblower-indictment/

[Mojorabbit]

1. Why do you think his admin is doing this? I would really love to know. nt

[Better Believe It]

5. If we knew all of the dirty "war" secrets we'd be inclined to oppose military adventures abroad.

I think that's one major reason behind all of the secrets and attacks on those who are spilling the beans.

[jeff47]

6. Because they leaked classified information

Whether or not they were "whistleblowers", they leaked classified information.

(And before too many people complain, there are ways to be a whistleblower without leaking classified information.)

Can't selectively enforce a law. So it's either prosecute whistleblowers, or the Aldrich Ames of the world go free.

[Better Believe It]

19. They classify millions of documents that have nothing to do with the security of the nation.

Using the "classified" stamp is a very convenient and easy way for government officials to hide information from the public on bogus national security grounds.

Everything is a big fricken secret and must be hidden from the public.

Millions of documents have the lowest level of classification called "confidential" and are routinely stamped that by low level government bureaucrats to conceal their errors or in some cases even criminal activity.

And we've seen tens of thousands of documents that were classified "top secret" that were finally released under FOIA lawsuits.

These documents had nothing to do with protecting us or the nation.

So "leaking" such documents doesn't impact the nation but can threaten to expose illegal or questionable government actions that the public needs to be aware of.

[jeff47]

24. Go check the part between the parenthesis.

If something has been classified improperly, there's several processes to declassify it. Leaking it is never a good choice.

And since the classifier is required to state on the document the reason the document is classified, it's pretty hard to classify a document "just because".

Millions of documents have the lowest level of classification called "confidential" and are routinely stamped that by low level government bureaucrats to conceal their errors or in some cases even criminal activity.

Criminal activity can't be classified. It's explicitly called out in the law. Thus classification really isn't a good way to hide criminal activity - charging a leaker would result in a quick dismissal of the charges.

Now what can happen is someone who leaks both actual classified and illegal activity. But far more commonly a lot of people think they know what's illegal, but they're wrong - For example, Manning didn't leak any illegal activity.

And we've seen tens of thousands of documents that were classified "top secret" that were finally released under FOIA lawsuits.

Classified documents can be released once the actual classified has been redacted. And it's commonly done. There's also the fact that the vast majority of classified documents are automatically downgraded - which is another reason that confidential isn't a good way to hide crimes, because it becomes unclassified pretty quickly.

[fasttense]

36. No, it's not hard to classify documents.

All you need is a reason that does not say because it will embarrass the government. There is always some little thing you can hang your hat on to claim a document needs classification.

Frequently the courts don't even address if a document was classified correctly. The prosecutor need only prove that the document or information was classified at the time, and that the person knew it was classified. The contents of the disclosure are not usually discussed, except in high profile cases.

Actually classifying information is one of the best ways to hide illegal activity. Only the originating agency need review the document for declassification. So outside eyes rarely look over classified information. Many agencies are so understaffed that they merely re-stamp the document as classified because it is easier than doing a thorough review of it.

When Clinton got into office he forced agencies to declassify many, many documents that were needlessly classified. There was a great purge of classified documents. Some of the stuff that was declassified under Clinton would make you laugh. It was so ridiculous to think people had classified them.

The classification system is not a smooth functioning, well managed system. It is filled with problems and loop holes. Just think Valerie Plame Wilson and all the convoluted excuses the bushes used to claim outing her was not revealing classified info.

[jeff47]

118. You don't get to make up the reason

The reasons to classify documents are explicitly spelled out in executive orders. You must cite the relevant part of the current EO when classifying a document.

Frequently the courts don't even address if a document was classified correctly.

That's because whistleblowers usually leak something that's unsavory, but not illegal nor improperly classified.

Only the originating agency need review the document for declassification.

Sorry, no. There's been a few EOs that took this away.

Many agencies are so understaffed that they merely re-stamp the document as classified because it is easier than doing a thorough review of it.

There is no mechanism to "re-stamp" a classified document. Classification does not have some sort of renewal. Instead, virtually all classifications are scheduled to decay on a fixed schedule. The exceptions are for things like nuclear weapon designs - and you don't get to call your illegal act a nuclear weapon design.

Just think Valerie Plame Wilson and all the convoluted excuses the bushes used to claim outing her was not revealing classified info.

Actually, all those excuses demonstrated that the people making the excuses have never seen real classified information. Because they make absolutely no sense once you understand how classified documents are marked in the real world, instead of how they are marked in movies. Also, people who know about real classified information understand Fitzgerald absolutely dropped the ball, despite his celebration on places like DU.

[dotymed]

42. jeff47

"For example, Manning didn't leak any illegal activity."

Intentional Murder of innocent civilians and journalist's, is not illegal?

[jeff47]

113. You're giving a perfect example of "whistleblowers" who are wrong about what they're leaking.

There was no intentional murder leaked. People were killed, yes, but the soldiers firing the weapons had reason to believe they weren't civilians.

This, btw, is why one should be a lot more careful going into war than the Iraq war cheerleaders - innocent people will die when they are misidentified.

[dotymed]

202. Obviously you did not watch the video.

Even after it was evident that they were killing civilians, they made another "pass" to finish the job. That is murder.

[jeff47]

206. Obviously, you didn't either.

They helpfully pointed out in the video the AK-47 one of the civilians was wielding. A second civilian was holding a large over-the-shoulder video camera, and those have a very long history of getting civilians killed due to their resemblance to anti-tank weapons. I personally know of a civilian killed in Panama because he decided to pop out from behind cover to videotape a column of tanks, for example.

There was no 2nd pass on the initial group, because it was not necessary. They were dead. Some other civilians decided to come to their aid, and the logical assumption is wounded/dead soldiers would be aided by soldiers. So the Apache opened fire on them.

Besides....how on earth do you think a 2nd pass is any different? They weren't on the ground. They did not walk up to the victims, notice they were civilians, and then shoot again. They were in the air at long range and remained in the air at long range. There was no way to improve the identification for your theoretical 2nd pass to be any worse than the first.

But hey, at least you got to dis some faceless soldiers, right?

Long story short - the poor bastards in the video resembled soldiers enough to be misidentified and killed. That's why war is bad. People are killed whether or not they are in uniform.

[dotymed]

222. How did I know who replied to my true post?

It wasn't hard. I suggest everyone watch the Bradley Manning video and decide for yourself.
To me, the kids really didn't look dangerous.
Yep, those "faceless soldiers" were defending our freedoms.

[jeff47]

223. Running around with an assault rifle in a war zone isn't dangerous?

Uh-huh. I'm sure it was loaded with candy and ice cream.

[Plucketeer]

48. Your argument assumes

- ASSUMES, mind you - that everyone involved is strictly on the up an up as they discern what should be cloaked and what shouldn't. Yeah, in a perfect world, no one would be hungry, no one would be sleeping in appliance cartons, and so on and so forth.

Furthermore - with guidance from on high - subordinates are going to do as directed. Their livlihood at stake, how many are gonna blow the whistle over proceses they deem improper?
I blew the whistle on some intentional bypassing of assembly standards, when I was involved in military aircraft production some 30-some years ago (my veteran supervisor told me he'd have someone else address a particular snafu when I complained that things weren't right). Air Force reps thanked me when I told therm what was going on, and in short order they stopped production on the plane involved and gave management and inspection a big lecture. What I got for rocking the boat was a threat of dismissal from my job. They told me there were "in-house" ways to have addressed what I had deemed as improper. Right. I knew damned well that if I made a 30-year supervisor (one who was liked - personally - by workers and subordinates) look bad, I'd be out on the street quicker'n I could blink!

Yeah, there's rules and guidelines and such - but your argument balances on the notion that they'll be sdhered to like gospel. If straying from instructions is an instigator for prosecution, we've got a passel of "reps" in various layers of government that are in deep doo-doo.

[jeff47]

116. No, it doesn't. We're talking about a situation where a whistleblower wants to leak. (nt)

[cliffordu]

29. In your humble opinion......

Which, in the scheme of things, is worth about what folks here pay for mine.

[CoffeeCat]

26. But we cannot tolerate such injustice and evil...EVER!

The classified information in this case was that a man was water boarded and he also stated
that water boarding was torture.

Ok, that is not giving away secrets--such as battlefield plans or other sensitive information that
undermines noble actions of the U.S Government.

The fact is, this man revealed crimes committed by our government. Couldn't one argue that
the concentration camps in Nazi Germany--and the atrocities that they were committing
were also "classified information" or "state secrets"? I am sure that any operative working for the
Nazis at the time--who leaked out this information would have been punished. Of course. That
doesn't mean the information should be kept secret.

Just because a government declares their disgusting crimes as "secret" or "classified"--in order to
keep their dirty work covered up--doesn't mean everyone has to fall in line like "Good Germans".

It's revolting that more people are NOT talking in our government.

We cannot allow our government to hide their evil and their crimes under the cloak of "classified information".

They work for us. They do not have the right to keep information from us--especially when they are committing
these crimes in our name and with our tax dollars. It's sick that we tolerate it.

And you damn well can selectively enforce a law! Any idiot judge with two brains cells can detect that when
government goons label crimes and evil as "classified"--it's a blatant attempt at hiding lawless
behavior. Anyone who can't see the difference between that behavior and a spy who sells secrets to foreign
governments--is lazy or ignorant.

[JDPriestly]

32. I don't think that information about possible crimes by members of our government

can be considered to be illegal espionage.

If that were true, then the people would have no right to knowledge of the crimes of their leaders. That would destroy our democracy.

Our leaders, even those elected by us, do not have the right to commit crimes against humanity or crimes against us and then declare the information about those crimes to be top secret and punish those who expose their crimes or those who accuse them of crimes.

This makes no sense. This interpretation of the espionage laws leave us ignorant and helpless in the face of criminals in our government.

[robinlynne]

84. well said.

[jeff47]

119. Unfortunately, Torture was ruled legal.

Thus it can be classified.

Our leaders, even those elected by us, do not have the right to commit crimes against humanity or crimes against us and then declare the information about those crimes to be top secret and punish those who expose their crimes or those who accuse them of crimes.

They don't. Illegal activity can't be classified. The problem is what you consider illegal isn't actually illegal.

[JonLP24]

142. It was?

Why is it, in plain English, illegal under federal laws U.S.C., 8th Amendment can be interpreted as prohibiting torture, and sorts of state & municipal laws? Why ares judges throwing out cases left and right because evidence obtained in Guantanamo cases involved torture?

I call BS, I want sources that torture was ruled legal when clearly there are several laws on the books that say otherwise.

[jeff47]

200. It became legal when it was declared "enhanced interrigaton techniques"

And no, judges are not throwing out cases left and right. Because torture failed to provide any useful information with which someone could be charged. But it made W feel like a tough guy.

[JonLP24]

213. Here

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/15/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-torture-banned-under-us-internationa/

2 days after Obama took office
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/

[jeff47]

214. What people think the law should say isn't what the law says.

Doesn't matter when we say "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be illegal. Fact is they are currently legal. Those statements describe the basis to bring a lawsuit overturning the legalization, but until those cases overturn the law, it's legal.

[JonLP24]

215. I posted the law

you're choosing to ignore what it says.

Some more info proving what you say is BS

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/30/bush-loses-guantanamo-case/

[jeff47]

217. Do you read your own links?

First paragraph:

In the most significant rebuff to George W. Bush’s assertion of executive power since he declared his "war on terror," the Supreme Court called a halt to Bush’s kangaroo courts at Guantánamo Bay.

Hey look! Not talking about torture nor "enhanced interrogation techniques". Instead, it's about not allowing military tribunals.

[JonLP24]

220. It is saying the rules of the Geneva Convention(Specifically Article 3)

applies to detainees in the "War on Terror". IOW, International law.

More info on Article 3
First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]

The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
Regardless, the Obama executive order comes after this.

[JDPriestly]

197. Torture isn't illegal?

It's illegal under international law. We severely punished others for it after WWII. If it was illegal then, when was it made legal?

[jeff47]

201. When "Enhanced interrogation techniques" were approved, and no successful challenge has been brought

[JDPriestly]

207. That does not make them legal under international law.

We won't pay for this now, but when a country does this kind of thing, sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost.

Bad, bad, bad karma. And torture (enhanced interrogation, ha!) is so stupid. It elicits lies as well as truth so the information is pretty useless. Torture is simply sadism. That's all it is.

[jeff47]

218. Yes, but international law is irrelevant in regards to the espionage act

Thus, charges.

[saras]

35. Bullshit. Every word.

They DO NOT prosecute everyone that leaks classified information, not even MOST of them. Just whistleblowers.

Can selectively enforce laws. Do it all the time, otherwise Cheney, Rumsfeld, and 5/9 of the SCOTUS would be in prison for treason, someone would be in jail for every single robosigned mortgage, and GWB would be spending his life in jail for cocaine and never would have been president in the first place.

And just how, exactly, would Bradley Manning, say, be a whistleblower (i.e.get the contents of the information he discovered, not mere rumors of it, to a public large enough to force action against the entire force of the organization he was exposing) without leaking classified information? Step-by-step instructions, please. NO ONE in the US military, up to and including the POTUS, was competent to receive the information, as demonstrated by the whistleblowing prosecution.

[jeff47]

120. No, you just hear about the whistleblowers

There's nobody publicizing the arrest, trial and conviction of the non-whistleblowers.

someone would be in jail for every single robosigned mortgage

Not classified.

GWB would be spending his life in jail for cocaine

Not classified.

Not arguing that cover-ups can't happen. But when someone shouts "Look over here!!!! I'm committing a crime!!!" they're gonna get prosecuted. And whistleblowing requires such shouting.

And just how, exactly, would [...] be a whistleblower [...] without leaking classified information?

There's several different processes that are explained when you are granted access to classified. No, they do not all involve going to the same people, agency or even branch of government. The exact steps depend on a lot of factors.

NO ONE in the US military, up to and including the POTUS, was competent to receive the information, as demonstrated by the whistleblowing prosecution.

Actually, anyone with access to SIPRNet was able to receive the information Manning leaked. But excellent straw man!

[Vattel]

56. Drake didn't release classified information.

And if contrary to the law, the CIA is torturing, there is an obligation to reveal that publicly even if that involves releasing classified information. Notice too that the torturers were not prosecuted but those that revealed their crimes are. Is that what you think is appropriate?

[jeff47]

122. Unfortunately, "enhanced interrogation" was rule legal, and nobody's successfully challenged that.

So even though it should be illegal, it is currently legal. That's kinda what we're all complaining about.

[Vattel]

140. It was clearly criminal prior to the amendments made to the war crimes act.

After that it is more ambiguous, but no court ever ruled that it did not violate the War Crimes Act or the Torture Act. It would need to be prosecuted in order for a Court to make such a ruling.

[sabrina 1]

162. How was torture ruled legal? Are we still part of the civilized world which signed

on the the Geneva Conventions? And just because a few Bush era criminals SAID it was legal, does not make it so. Since the law has not been applied, there has been no test of the assertions of the Bush torturers. But other countries are going after them. Clearly they do not believe you can torture people according to International Law no matter how much you think you can.

This whistle-blower did the right thing, he is clearly someone who has a conscience, and during the Bush years when he spoke publicly about this, did you claim then that 'torture was legal' and he had no right to do so? He has been talking about it since 2007. I don't recall any Democrats condemning him for doing so, nor should they.

[didact]

69. "whistleblower"...such a cute metaphor

"classified" is the key

[robinlynne]

83. so when international crimes are committed, one should be quiet and "obey the law"?

[jeff47]

123. If one doesn't want to be prosecuted, yes.

And as mentioned up there, there are ways to expose wrongdoing without leaking classified.

And keep in mind there really isn't such a thing as "international crimes" yet, mostly because there really isn't an enforcement system yet. So far it's only enforced when the US is annoyed enough to do something about it.

[FightForChange]

93. Problem with the Espionage Act

The problem with the Aldrich Ames example is that it reveals the basic flaw in the Espionage Act which many ignore. The fact that we are asking a CIA operative to look the other way while we torture people, and then prosecute him for stopping the torture makes me sick. And our reason is to stop the one in a million soviet spies? After seeing this justification I think it's pretty clear that the problem is with the basis for the Espionage Act as well as it's use, the act is actually probably more to blame. In cases like this I find this quote to be really important: "They who can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin

Peace.

[jeff47]

125. Why do you think he stopped anything?

He leaked classified. His hope is that public outcry would lead to torture being stopped. Instead, "enhanced interrogation techniques" were codified.

But much more importantly, this particular individual didn't seem too upset when he learned about it in 2004. Somehow, he was only troubled after W left office....

[sudopod]

184. Too bad pardoning people doesn't poll better, eh? nt

[truedelphi]

107. If this case is similar to the Bush Admin's case against Tom Drake,

In the end, it will be "discovered" that the person did nothing wrong, but did release information that would damage someone's career.

Thomas Drake had to spend years of his life and lots of money, simply to prove himself innocent. And in the end, it was all kangaroo charges against him.

(Tom Drake is mentioned in the OP.)

And of course, we were all incensed about this when it was Bush maneuvering in this fashion, but now that it is a guy with a "D" after his name, bring on the totalitarianism!

[markpkessinger]

147. But prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage IS unprecedented ...

... and VERY odious!

[quakerboy]

216. Bologna

"cant selectively enforce a law".


Bull shit. Ask Paris Hilton, George Zimmerman, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Martha Stewart, or Governor Siegelman about the lack of selective enforcement.

IS that how things should be? Perhaps not. But its clearly exactly how things are.

[jeff47]

219. When we pretend selective enforcement is OK

Then it's ok when your list of people go free.

[quakerboy]

221. Don't need to pretend it exists

when I can look around and see it easily in the news virtually every day.

Ok is not the same as existing. And nothing has been done to stop it from existing. And not everyone on my list "went free". Some were selectively locked up. The law is enforced selectively. I dare you to find anyone from the 1% that has ended up in prison due to drug laws.

[RKP5637]

12. I think for two reasons. 1. They leaked classified information. And 2., the MIC

has their hooks into this country pretty deeply. War and related activities, arms sales, R&D, etc. means big big profits for some very powerful people/corps./business interests.

[pscot]

18. They have no choice

because they don't have 60 votes in the Senate. Or something.

[Dont call me Shirley]

106. To cover the butts of the gwb admin's war crimes.

Threatening and/or blackmailing the prez

[SidDithers]

2. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[brentspeak]

8. Keep spamming n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

112. How do Canadians feel about the US torturning people?

[ProSense]

3. Here

two previous threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002528908

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002532887

It appears he was indicted for outing a CIA agent.

My issue is why he waited until 2007 to do it when he had the information prior to the 2004 election.

[leftyohiolib]

4. scooter libby?

[ProSense]

7. Yeah,

I remember the calls to try him for treason, but then Bush was President.

[freshwest]

16. It would have been great if he'd cut loose with this in 2004.

Article gives no reason why he didn't.

It served the GOP then for him to hold back, and serves them now for him to release it.

[TheKentuckian]

41. It served the GOP by releasing the information on 2007 how?

In fact, if released information about crimes during the Bush Administration now how does that serve Republicans?

Are you not more concerned about partisan politics than any duty to the truth and correcting the path of our nation?

[ProSense]

46. Are you saying

that releasing this information prior to 2004 wouldn't have made a huge difference?

How about releasing before more people were tortured and before the 2004 election?

[sudopod]

185. Fear of retribution, perhaps? nt

[freshwest]

55. Title of thread refers to Obama's actions, not Bush. Held for political effect. Indicted now for

Doing a Scooter Libby, whom Bush got off the hook as it served his intentions to out an CIA agent during the Bush administration, since her husband was arguing against the yellow cake canard to start the Iraq War.

CIA agents and civil servants are not above doing things for partisan politics.

The Republicans don't hold what Scooter did against them, nor anything else that Bush did. All the refuse he left that the Obama administration has been cleaning up, has magically left his balance sheet and transferred to the Democrats. There is a convenient memory lapse with conspiracy theorists who forget the GOP media and their followers of the firestorm about Gitmo, which Obama tried to close. They're complaining about these prosecutions, too:

http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/05/republicans-call-on-obama-admin-to-halt-investigation-of-cia-operatives/

There has never been so embattled a president since FDR, not even Carter or JFK faced this amount of opposition. And for the exact same reasons. FDR failed at many things in his first two terms, but all that is remembered are his successes, which only occurred after battles with the Supreme Court and all other forces the business class threw at him, including a coup by Prescott Bush and pals.

And FDR did not have a public as dumbed down and divided as Americans are now, watching the media spin machine that has with Koch brothers money from CT to mainstream, and the spawn of the rest of FDR's enemies, playing both sides against him. Back then one could speak of anything about public works or working together (socialism) and not get run out of town to the curses of the ignorant poor white voter, like in 2010.

As far as the spawn of Prescott, Bush, Sr., CIA director and friend to Nixon and Reagan, Republicans don't care, they didn't care when he did it, and they don't care now. Nothing he did, including TARP, the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, water boarding and stealing billions, do they hold against them. And the aftermath of all of that is what we're living with now.

That's not in the news, yet what the GOP doesn't want to happen is in the news. Something is rotten.

Now that this man's actions have come under fire for law enforcement under the Obama administration for committing a Scooter Libby, some find fault with Obama. Complaints of partisanship are frequently used by the GOP, which is the most partisan group there is, whereas if a Democrat trys to work work with the GOP which doesn't play fair, they're bad, also. Can't win.

I want protections for those who are whistle blowing, always have. The merits of what this man did, are not being argued here, whether he outed someone in the sacred class of 'intelligence operatives' of which he a part of, but only that the Obama administration is following the law. He didn't write this law, and the DOJ is enforcing it.

The Holder DOJ, which people love to accuse of doing nothing, but has quietly been trying to rein much the Republicans have done, is accused of prosecuting the wrong things. The same people who whined about Bush not policing his own administration did so to a deaf audience, but now find it special that Obama is following the laws that Bush refused to follow. The DOJ is not just going after people that make the government look bad, as is being claimed here.

Protections for whistle blowers was eliminated during the Bush administration and I saw that happening up close and personal and people's lives being hurt. Those laws have eviscerated the standards, and Obama had nothing to do with doing it. Part of following the law involves arresting those who break it.

This suddenly heroic figure got in trouble for something he'd done during the Bush administration. People who fancy themselves born-again freedom fighters against the Obama administration won't address the fact that indictments are being handed down on the fallout of that mess on a daily basis.

http://www.justice.gov/

This man just got the sympathy of a group because he outed what Bush did. Not when it would have stopped anything. No, he held on that, and likely other things to keep his job.

I've known heroes in my life who have been savaged from doing government and corporate whistle blowing because they wanted to save lives. They didn't hold onto information until it was dead, dried up and useless like this guy, who held onto it for almost a decade. When Bush changed the laws, states rewrote their laws to match them and whistle blowers didn't win in court.

Truth will get out, justice will happen. We have a government that is involved in thousands of things that I despise and loathe. Whether it will ever go back to the Carter administration or Kennedy administration level of openness, which was alway tainted by the MIC, I can't say.

The idea that this guy is somehow special, smacks of idolatry. It reminds me of Oliver North who has been applauded for obstructing and lying to the Congress trying to get to the truth of Iran Contra. The folks who are willing to worship this man, accuse those who won't join in, of not believing in truth or justice. They say they are Democrats, when the GOP did the same.

It's very popular to attack this President on anything and everything, including things he didn't do. It's running with the pack of dogs set loose by media on any given day, both mainstream and conspiracy, but the effect is the same on those trying to get anything done, demoralization and moving to the right.

Anyone who is disturbed by modern governance is not happy at what the title charges, not because it's about Obama, is in their right mind to my point of view. This is not about one man who holds the office of POTUS, but a machine in place since WW2.

Some of us encouraged at the things Obama has done that are saving lives, have noticed that those who are running with that pack, never, ever find that Obama has done anything progressive because they are incapable of rejoicing at the smallest thing.

It would force them to leave their cynicism and media induced righteousness behind and dip into the chaos that we are facing. After a while, it becomes obvious that those who are sitting in judgment of those trying to get a messy job done, are not getting anything done, either, and I can't help but wonder why.

I won't bother to reason with anyone who's on a roll and I won't stand in the way. Carry on. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

132. Well said.....

[JDPriestly]

33. But no one was indicted for outing Valerie Plame? Why not?

Because someone hid behind executive privilege? Or because a prosecutor bungled the investigation accidentally on purpose?

[jeff47]

126. The latter.

I never understood just how thrilled DUers were about Fitzgerald. He severely botched his job.

[JDPriestly]

34. Where do you see something about being indicted for outing a CIA agent?

I didn't notice that. Please be more precise about it.

[ProSense]

50. What I see

is a person who was out for personal gain.

<...>

Whistleblowing on Torture

In December 2007 Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[10] where he was described as participating in the capture and questioning of Abu Zubaydah, who is accused of having been an aide to Osama Bin Laden. According to Kiriakou, based on what he had been told by the CIA, it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to extract answers to an interrogator's questions from Abu Zubaydah.

...He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably 30, 35 seconds... and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that Allah had visit him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[11]

Eventually it became known that Abu Zubaydah had in fact been waterboarded at least 83 times,[12] and that little or no useful extra information may have been gained by "harsh methods".[13][14] However, even when Kiriakou was under the mistaken belief from the CIA that Zubayda was waterboarded only once, he acknowledge that even the relatively mild single instance of waterboarding he described constituted a form of torture and expressed reservations about whether the value of the information was worth the damage done to the United States' reputation.

Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding, and the relatively mild nature of it, were widely repeated, and paraphrased,[15][16] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public affairs shows, on the topics of interrogation, and counter-terrorism.

On the second to last page of his 2010 memoir entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror[2] Kiriakou acknowledged that he was not present during Abu Zubaydah's interrogations, and had no first-hand knowledge of Abu Zubaydah's waterboardings:

I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time. [17][18]

Charged

On Monday, January 23, 2012, Kiriakou was charged with repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee, Deuce Martinez, in classified activities. [19][20][21] In addition to leaking the names and roles of CIA officers, Kiriakou was alleged to have lied to the CIA to get his book published. [22]

On 5 April, he was indicted. The indictment charges Kiriakou with 1 count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 3 counts of violating the Espionage Act, and 1 count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou#Whistleblowing_on_Torture

Now, even his limited knowledge would have had a much bigger impact prior in 2004 or earlier.

[JDPriestly]

198. Maybe he couldn't find the courage, or maybe no one was willing to listen

prior to 2004.

[polichick]

9. War criminals walk but whistleblowers stand trial?! Pretty fucked up.

[marshall gaines]

57. 10-4

10-4 on that. i did not, in spite of our president not wanting to appear weak or appeasing to the repugs when it comes to whistleblowers, vote for our current president to be engaged in shameful legalities such as this. what is going on here?

[FarLeftFist]

10. President Obama is trying cases now?!

[think]

11. Naw, he's much too busy getting the Patriot Act repealed...

[Better Believe It]

43. President Obama can direct the DOJ to not prosecute whistleblowers .... unless he's a weak and

powerless president.

[BklnDem75]

51. So you want this President to ask the DOJ to not do their job

We use to hate it when Bush used the DOJ in this way. Why is it ok now?

[Better Believe It]

61. I want the Obama administration to not charge whistleblowers with espionage!

Is that expecting too much from a "liberal" and "pro civil liberties" President?

Unless you think that the government is duty bound to persecute and prosecute whistleblowers for shedding public light on government activities that are against the interests of the American people.

So what kind of espionage did the whistleblowers engaged in that threatened our survival and well being?

What great "state secrets" were revealed that threatened to bring down the nation and enable terrorists to take over the United States?

I'm listening.

[randome]

65. No, not at all.

What you want is to demoralize DUers because the only things you post -time after time again- are items that you twist and distort to put the worst possible light on the current President.

Granted, Obama is not perfect. But your naked desire to make us believe he is out to get us all is tiresome. You are embarrassing yourself -again.

[Dragonfli]

76. Are you the Amazing Kreskin? You know that is what he wants? Really? How do you explain

away the actual fact that the poster you like to stalk was posting the same damning evidence of Bush improprieties well before our beloved half/Democrat was even elected?

He has posted against police state progression for quite a bit longer than 2009.

What were his motives then? To trick us all into thinking he opposed this crap all along by conveniently posting consistently against abuses by both Imperially empowered Presidents?

[Bobbie Jo]

127. Link?

More specifically, a pre-Obama link?

This I gotta see. I'll wait.

[sabrina 1]

160. That's how I remember it, Dragonfli. All of a sudden we're not supposed to care

about important issues anymore. That is just not going to work for people who have actual principles. He is one of those who always posted on the issues airc.

It is shameful frankly, that we are still talking about these issues, that on many of the most important issues, such as War Crimes, Economic Crimes, Civil Liberties, Whistle-blowers, I thought by now we would have made some progress. Since we have not, it is essential that someone continues to remind us what we were fighting for when we worked so hard in 2008.

I don't get the objections or the demand to remain silent as these issues are vitally important, as they were during the Bush years.

[SidDithers]

103. Well said...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

104. So you can use english, just in a very limited way it would appear. At least it's a start.

[Better Believe It]

108. So do you favor charging whistleblowers with espionage? Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

[BklnDem75]

68. So you DO want Obama to act like Bush

You want him ignore crimes you agree with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. He seems to be pretty good at ignoring torture and the prosecution of torturers.

[BklnDem75]

88. Probably because it's not his job

It was wrong when Bush ordered his DOJ around. It's hilarious that people claim Obama's more like Bush by refusing to be more like Bush.

[Better Believe It]

111. All Presidents give direction to the DOJ. You didn't know that?

[BklnDem75]

130. That direction isn't to ignore lawbreakers

[Better Believe It]

134. So you think Obama should concentrate DOJ resources on medical pot dispensaries and whistleblowers.

Right.

Get those lawbreakers!

[BklnDem75]

168. Obama should let Holder do his job, like he's been appointed to do

[Better Believe It]

109. I don't want him to and I really wish he wouldn't when it comes to civil liberties.

[BklnDem75]

131. Espionage isn't a civil liberty

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

151. But, when done by the CIA murdererers and torturers, it's protected by our government.

[SidDithers]

102. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[AzDar]

13. K & R

[snappyturtle]

14. Is waterboarding classified intormation? nt

[teddy51]

17. I certainly would prefer to vote for someone more progressive than Obama, but I am

afraid he is the best that we have at this time! Many of us are just going to plug our noses and vote Obama and hope that 2016 will hold a much more Progressive candidate on the Democratic ticket. As a person (and I can't really say that I know President Obama, personally) I like his personality and his family as I see it.

[CoffeeCat]

30. You can vote for whomever you want--it won't change a thing

It should be apparent by now, that it doesn't matter who is in office--Dem, Rep or whatever. Our system
is so corrupt and so taken over by the corporations and a bunch of sell-out, coin-operated elected
politicians--that voting is practically meaningless.

The corruption continues, no matter who is in office or no matter how well-intentioned, intelligent or moral
the President is.

The sick disease that has taken over our government is more powerful than the office of the Presidency. The
corporations run things now. They decide.

I think it's fine if people want to post threads about the benefits of voting for Obama. It's also fine to discuss
why Obama would be better than Romney. Lord know there are dozens of reasons. But it angers me when
we've got a very serious discussion going on here about honest whistleblowers who are being imprisoned for
revealing the crimes our government is perpetrating---and we're brought back to this voting issue. It's like
we're all discussing the horrible hell that is our government and how sick and disgusting and corrupt it all is--and
how truth tellers are now being thrown in jail for talking---and the answer is...remember to vote for our guy???

No. Sorry. This is a huge problem that requires an major overhaul of our federal government and a purging of
the entire system as it is run right now--with evil, powerful corporations controlling our government. We're not
lemmings. We don't need to hear these sick realities--then be pulled back in and reminded that we must still
vote for the Democrat. Yes, we must vote for the Democrat--but that is not the right solution for the topic
being discussed here. We need serious, paradigm-shifting change and revolt in this country--if our votes
are ever to mean anything.

We don't need to be reminded like good little soldiers--that we must vote, vote, vote--as our democracy
is dismantled in front of our faces.

[Mojorabbit]

63. +1000 nt

[dougolat]

187. The point, the lesson, & the problem, right there. nt

[gateley]

137. Don't know -- the whole COUNTRY seems to be moving to the right lately. :(

[sabrina 1]

190. I don't think it's the people who are moving right. The polls show that

on major issues the people overwhelming support FDR type policies, such as SS, Medicare, etc. And a vast majority want the Wall Street criminals brought to justice. But Corporate America runs the government, no one gets elected anymore without their money, and they are definitely not interested in what the people want, so we get rightwing policies with the help of both parties now.

[gateley]

194. Yeah, you're right on that. nt

[DeSwiss]

20. K&R

Referring to the Bush Administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans: "We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk ... Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." ~ Presidential Candidate & U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2008

[Iliyah]

21. Going into Iraq

is a war crime in itself. These people who, before and after 2001 - 2008 need to go to jail.

[HooptieWagon]

22. If only they went after war criminals with equal vigor.

[emilyg]

23. k/r

[donheld]

25. How many Wall Street bankers have been indicted?

0

[uponit7771]

27. Somehow this story will end up in the bullshit half truth folder like many other Obama

...post

[cliffordu]

28. What time is it?

Don't matter.

This train is never late.

[JDPriestly]

31. Obama has us over a barrel.

We either vote for the fascist Republicans or for him. This is a shameful situation.

The torture was illegal. It was a arguably crime. Since when is it a crime to expose crime within the government?

[xiamiam]

52. expect a mighty and angry populace to arise this summer who is sick of wars, corruption

and prosecutes those who want transparency.
he thinks, wrongly..that we will take this ...and we wont..it will neither be romney nor obama winning the election ...as they are merely different sides of the same coin.

expect a miracle because that is what we are going to need and what this world deserves

sound naive? well, in hindsight, not as naive as believing in that hopey changey thing which i bought hook, line and sinker

[girl gone mad]

37. Pure evil.

This government is so sick and corrupt.

[nolabels]

49. I am amazed that people could get lathered up about something like this

Since like forever it's been going on and electing a new figure-head has never changed it. The fairy-tales that are inflicted on most US history books are there only to indoctrinate. Look to many sources and most things will be obvious and par for course

[xchrom]

38. du rec. nt

[JoePhilly]

39. Obama bad Obama bad Obama bad.

I like the breathlessness in each of the two articles.

[xiamiam]

53. so sick of that ridiculous remark..on iggy for anyone who chooses that as their defense fyi..nt

[JoePhilly]

64. Oh please no ... not iggy!!!

I find the endless stream of articles by people no one knows, on sites no one has heard of, rather funny.

And I suspect that as Obama's re-election gets closer, the shrillness of such articles will continue to increase.

As for the "iggy", oh well ... I'll be hurt for a while ... but I'll get over it.

[just1voice]

59. I like the reactions blind partisans have, such as childlike taunting, LOL!

It's post like these, posts that link articles that discuss real issues, that let everyone know who the blind partisans are. Support of whistle blowers is crucial to a democracy and for people in the military who's duty it is to their country to report/whistle blow on things such as war crimes, support of them is just as crucial.

And all you can do is taunt people like a 3rd-grade bully for stating their support of their country. That's truly pathetic.

[SidDithers]

67. OMFG!!! Partisans on a partisan website!!!...

Holy shit. WTF are partisans doing at Democratic Underground??!?

Sid

[Dragonfli]

77. You are a partisan? To what party do you belong, what state do you vote primary in? /nt

[SidDithers]

78. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

79. ..

[Dragonfli]

81. I don't speak graphic, are you able to use English?

[Fuddnik]

110. He used to know only one word.

"unrec"

But it got purged from the dictionary.

[Hawkowl]

99. Partisans of deception

Certainly not traditional Democratic Party partisans. Partisans of oppressing the truth? Partisans of taunting and ridiculing the left? I'd buy that.

[JoePhilly]

73. I read the articles and found both to be rather shrill.

We have a person who is being charged with breaking the law. A court will decide if they did or not. Some whistle-blowers are doing a good thing, some think they are, when they are not.

You claim the articles discuss "real issues" ... I'd disagree ... by my reading, the two articles are not "discussing" the situation at all, they are pushing a very specific agenda, and their style of doing so is rather transparent and disingenuous.

So why discuss the "real issues" when both articles have already told you what it is you are supposed to believe about the case? Given the level of hyperbole in those articles, its a wasted effort. Everyone who claims whistle-blower status is a saint, and if the government disagrees, its evil. Might as well try to get a pro-life fundy to support late term abortion.

Now ... as for my response. I periodically use that specific response intentionally.

As I said, the articles make it clear that there is nothing to debate. The administration is bad, the person charged with leaking classified information is good There is nothing to discuss.

So what is the point of the articles, and why are they posted here on DU?

Which brings us back to my subject line. Its not a taunt, its my interpretation of the intent of the articles.

[randome]

74. I'm putting you on Un-Ignore!

[JoePhilly]

82. Redemption!!!

This place is a great time!!

[ProSense]

87. Well, between

your comment and this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=536701

I'm doing this:

[KG]

40. keep trying...w/t

keep trying to get the word out there.

[a2liberal]

44. K&R (n/t)

[bahrbearian]

45. So when is Obama going to indict Cheney?

For outing a CIA agent.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Presidents don't indict people, the Justice Department does

[Better Believe It]

62. Right. Obama knows nothing about these prosecutions. If he did, he'd stop them!

Thanks for the info.

One might think that "talking point" is just passing the buck!

Obama doesn't know! Obama doesn't approve! Obama doesn't have any power! He's only the chief executive officer of the federal government! He's a CEO without power! It's an out of control Department of Justice! Really!

Sure.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. So, you are suggesting that the President should interfere with Justice Dept. prosecutions?

Can you day "obstruction of justice?"

[Better Believe It]

94. YES! EXACTLY! ALL Presidents indicate their priorities to the Justice Department.

The DOJ has limited resources and the Attorney General in consultation with the President decide on what types of cases to aggressively pursue and which ones to put in the circular file (wastebasket) or on the back burner.

This is done all of the time by all Presidents, Republican and Democratic.

You didn't know that?

Going after government whistleblowers by falsely claiming they are engage in "enemy espionage" and spending millions of bucks to go after medical pot dispensaries should not be on the front burners at all. President Obama could instruct his Attorney General to back off from those attacks!

Do you agree or do you have a problem with that?

[Mimosa]

192. That's the irrefutable truth

The message is loud and clear. STFU, don't say a word, raise your head and it will be cut off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. And, poor, delicate, Obama has no say in his Justice Department.

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. Sure he does, but interfering with a prosecution could be construed as

obstruction of justice.

[Better Believe It]

95. The Justice Department can reset its priorities and decide it doesn't have a firm "espionage" case

against government whistleblowers or find some other reason to back off.

What reason did they give for backing off from Wall Street prosecutions?

Use that one!

Make one up! This administration knows how to do stuff like that .... they are experts!

Do you also believe Obama's Justice Department should keep going after pot dispensaries on the front burner for prosecution?

Leave them alone!

Back off!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. By whom? The Republicans? The media?

And, why should that matter? Is he afraid of being (gasp!) embarrassed? Or, (yikes!) disliked by the thugs at CIA?

[DevonRex]

54. Would Obama be good if he did a Moscow Flash Mob dance?

[url=http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php][img][/img][/url]

[TBF]

90. I see red-baiting is alive and well. Nice.

FYI, CPUSA is not running a candidate and endorsed Obama.

[DevonRex]

114. Oh how silly.

The last post BBI did that I saw was the Moscow flash Mob dancing to some show tune or something. Lighten up Francis. First funny thing I've ever seen him/her post. Ever.

And you have no clue what my politics are. So can it with the red baiting shit.

[TBF]

121. I'm so glad to hear that because I thought you had a problem with BBI -

like many others in this thread. And I really can't stand lynch mobs. I'll be looking forward to seeing your K&Rs on his posts in the future.

[sabrina 1]

191. It's just a few, actually, the same few all the time. I am grateful to them because

they keep his threads at the top of the list and that's how I usually find them.

I agree with the rest of what you said, you are not alone in your feelings about consistent harassment of posters which is why, ironically, once people notice that kind of behavior, the target generally gets so much support from the majority of DUers.

[stupidicus]

58. Totally unsurprising

As with all such efforts from the state, it's part of a "an ounce of prevention..." strategy, and in this case, not much diff in principle and practice from the latest strip search decision rendered by the SCOTUS his DOJ promoted and supported.

It's all about (intimidation) discouraging people from embracing and participating in efforts to pull back the curtain like Toto, and preserving the illusion of Oz (BHO's wouldbe wonderland)http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/w/wizard_of_oz/merry_old_land_of_oz.html , because we "can't handle the truth!".

That's why the state is so stingy with "liberty", but so generous with the dispensing of "death" and less punitive measures.

We've all seen how they handle mostly imaginary existential threats to our physical national security, so seeing them react this way to an existential threat to the NS apparatus is justifiably to be considered outrageous, but it should also be equally unsurprising.

And in this case in particular, it dovetails quite nicely with his efforts to sweep our collective shame and his duty and responsibility to bring the torturers to justice, under the proverbial rug.

It is imo, merely a repeating of history with different actors.


WILLIAM SAFIRE
The New York Times; Section A; Page 25; Column 5
September 9, 1993, Thursday, Late Edition - Final

George Bush privately assured Bill Clinton that he would not criticize the new President during the first year of his term. I cannot attribute that to any source, but trust me. And Mr. Bush has kept his word.

In what may be an unspoken quid pro quo, the Clinton Administration has moved to quash any revelations about Bush's Iraqgate scandal. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-09-10/news/1993253209_1_iraqgate-bush-justice-rome

which as is commonly known, he did for the lingering Iran-Contra investigations as well.

the sad part is, despite all the water-carrying for repubs Clinton did -- like in those cases, failing to soil/tarnish the repub brand with the obvious positive political ramifications for dems -- and as is the preception about BHO for many, it'll serve as no bar to them impeaching him should the opportunity arise.

The relative silence of Clinton during the lead up to and after "Shock and Awe", as well as his subsequently becoming Bush Sr's adopted son, has always made clear to this observer that he knew that Junior would never have sold his wmd lies, butfor his.

The only diff here is that BC had skeletons in his NS closet, whereas BHO may be just starting to fill his, and discouraging their public disclosure. And just imagine how discouraging the strip searching will be to the OWSers jailed for civil disobedience if it becomes the standard practice like these prosecutions apparently are.

This is why I keep asking myself, "when and over what is the lesser of two evils too evil to support?", compelling one to fall silent in the voting booth, like one should during a good cop/bad cop interrogation when all doubt is removed as to their lack of interest in justice, and seeing only their self-interests stemming from who and what they are. That is the question I struggle with over Nov, in voting for the one I was reluctant to the first time around. I'm guessing like many, the fear of the bad cop will overcome my reluctance, and for the same reason it always has -- imminent SCOTUS appointments -- not satisfaction with the one that will appoint them.

That's why the OWS is behind neither party, ain't it, because we can no longer afford to distinguish in a major way between the bad guys and their enablers, regardless of their "good intentions" the road to hell is paved by? It's kinda like asking a black guy to distinguish between the KKK guy, and his so-called "white friend" that fails to denounce them as they're selling their wares to them, because he/she thinks the redemptive power of love isn't wasted on a dedicated hater. And in this case, it isn't the right to be a racist cons are protecting, but rather retaining the political power of their monied master that keep us all on the plantation in the corporate state, as they export their hegemony to the rest of the world.

Survival of the Empire can extract a very heavy toll, but at least we can expect some scraps from the good cop BHO to keep the illusion of OZ alive, until Toto comes long and reveals the "Big lie"...

Sadly, all too often Toto isn't found or seen in the present where action can and should be demanded and taken -- Tolkin anyone? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 -- but rather in the history books well after the damage has been done, and this prosecution will result in many kicking the can down the yellow brick road to ruin in the present. LBJ did a lot of good too, with Medicare, the CRA, the VRA, etc, but does that compensate for the grief he caused outside our borders and within with his VN choice?

I hope I live long anough to not have to make the lesser of two evils choice in the voting booth. As a former whistleblower in the work place, this kinda stuff is particularly galling to me, and for the same reason -- the survival of the offending company and my job was less important than the justice issues. ANd this kinda stuff won't in any way, lessen the use of that "apologist" charge the rightwingnuts love to lie about and direct at BHO, just as they've given him no thanks or credit for providing their own a shroud of protection this enlarges.

[Oilwellian]

129. I completely agree

Very well said. Welcome to DU. I look forward to reading more from you.

K&R

[dougolat]

186. Yes indeed! nt

[lovuian]

60. Bush and Cheney are still walking out there and

no charges of torture have been prosecuted

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Exposing torture is a crime..torturing or enabling torture isn't. Especially in campaign season.

[druidity33]

128. Exposing torture is a crime..torturing or enabling torture isn't. Especially in campaign season.

That needed to be restated.

[Uncle Joe]

72. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[inna]

85. +1

[truebrit71]

75. ...this, plus the continued war on Legalized Marijuana Dispensaries are some of the more infuriating

aspects of this Presidency. Coupled with the fact that they directly opposite what candidate Obama said means that this year we vote AGAINST the repuke, whereas in 2008 we voted FOR Obama...

[Better Believe It]

86. ACLU: In 2009 the Obama administration made 54 million decisions to classify government documents!

Boy, that's a whole lot of government documents classified in order to protect us from terrorists, subversives, pinkos and other un-American types. 54 million in just one year!

Do you think the "classification rubber stamp" is being abused just a wee bit in order to protect government functionaries and cover up possible misdeeds?

Noooooo. That would never happen!

From the ACLU Memo:

" The National Archives and Records Administration’s Information Security Oversight Office
(ISOO) released its annual report on the government’s security classification programs today,
revealing useful statistics about how much information the government hid from public view for
national security reasons in 2009.1 The American Civil Liberties Union offers this memo to
highlight the importance of this new data and to call for more significant reform of a bloated
secrecy regime that kills public accountability and cripples our constitutional system of checks
and balances.

Typically ISOO’s annual reports are useful in determining whether the government is classifying
more or less information than in previous years. For 2009, however, ISOO changed the way it
counts classified electronic records – making comparisons to previous years impossible but
providing a clearer picture of the amount of classified information the government actually
produces. The result is startling. Under the new counting system, ISOO determined the
government made over 54 million classification decisions in 2009, which is well more than
double the previous record 23 million decisions ISOO reported for 2008.

Read the full ACLU Memo at:

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Inerested_Persons_Memo_re_ISOO_Report_for_FY_2009_and_Derivative_Classification.pdf

[ProSense]

100. The Good News

This document basically states that the increase is a result of more accurate counting. President Obama changed the counting method, he had nothing to do with the process of classifiying the documents.

From the snip you posted:

Typically ISOO’s annual reports are useful in determining whether the government is classifying more or less information than in previous years. For 2009, however, ISOO changed the way it counts classified electronic records – making comparisons to previous years impossible but providing a clearer picture of the amount of classified information the government actually produces...

More from the document:

II. The Good News

The good news in the ISOO report is that the number of original classification decisions is down considerably, continuing a trend that started in 2005. Original classification decisions are the initial determinations made by original classification authorities (OCA) who are specifically designated by the President or agency heads and trained to judge what information absolutely must be safeguarded to protect national security. Only 183,224 original classification decisions were made in 2009, and a record number of those (67%) assigned declassification dates of ten years or less, which is on the shorter end of the spectrum of possibilities.3 One might think that this downward pressure on original classification decisions, combined with choosing to classify information for shorter periods of time, would lead to shrinking amounts of classified information, but overall classification has gone up precipitously, even before ISOO’s counting methodology changed. The problem lies not with original classifications, but rather with the unregulated growth of derivative classifications.

II. The Problem of Derivative Classification

The vast majority of classification decisions, 99.66% of them in 2009, are made by government employees and contractors who may have had little or no training in classification policy, yet have the authority to wield classification stamps with little oversight and virtually no accountability. Derivative classification, the ISOO report explains, is “the act of incorporating, paraphrasing, restating, or generating in new form information that is already classified and, therefore, not considered new ‘secrets.’”4 For example, when a CIA analyst writes a report that includes information from another document that is already marked secret, or which references a program or operation that an OCA has declared classified, the CIA analyst will “derivatively” mark the new document at the same classification level as the source material. ISOO suggests that derivative classification, therefore, creates no “new secrets.” In theory that might be true, but in practice when derivative classifiers are creating 99.66% of the classified information the government produces each a year they are most certainly creating many “new secrets.”

The problem of derivative classification was highlighted in a 1997 study of government secrecy conducted by the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, better known as the Moynihan Commission after its chairman, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The study revealed the then-startling fact that only 6% of classification actions were taken by trained OCA.5 The Moynihan Commission reported that any of the over 3 million security clearance holders in government and private industry, ranging from entry-level soldiers to government contractors to political appointees, could derivatively classify information.

[Rex]

89. It is because we have a system in place that clearly puts state secrets

above the welfare of our society.

No wonder they don't like this guy, he wouldn't torture people! I'm surprised the CIA let him stay on the payroll for so long.

[patrice]

97. It's no state secret that a few million Iraqis will NEVER forget us. nt

[patrice]

96. "... a rose by any other name ..." would still look like a rose. nt

[bvar22]

98. So?...What are they going to do?

[font size=4]So?...What are the Liberal "Retards" going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha![/font]



[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[G_j]

101. maybe the real story should be: the high crimes they didn't bother to even investigate

and the American war criminals given the free pass and red carpet.

[Dont call me Shirley]

105. That's what GW and Jebby's visit was about to the WH

covering baby george's a$$.

[rudycantfail]

117. Whats wrong with everybody?

Obama's the captain of our team!?!

[NYC_SKP]

133. There is a series of articles published daily by paid operatives trying to suppress the vote.

To suppress support of Obama.

And the most detestable part is that they pretend to be progressive but dine with the bankers.

The article in this OP is deliberately misleading, as proven by many of the responses in the thread.

Sad thing that so many people fall for it.

[Fumesucker]

136. What's strange is some of those same paid operatives used to post anti-Bush articles..

In order to suppress the Republican vote..

[NYC_SKP]

138. That's Cunning!!!

they're devious!

[rudycantfail]

139. Facts be damned.

Our Captain can do no wrong.

[NYC_SKP]

141. These articles: terrific distractions away from the real enemies.

Obama ain't one of 'em.

[Better Believe It]

146. So the progressive government whistleblowers are the enemy?

[NYC_SKP]

155. Monsanto, Exxon, Consolidated Media, etc...

they are the enemy who enjoy our fighting amongst ourselves.

I rarely see an article from you that isn't taking Democrats to task, and I find that an unfortunate concentration of energy.

Just my opinion.

[joshcryer]

164. Yep, divide and conquer.

We saw it with Occupy recently.

[joshcryer]

143. I am collecting a list of recently PPR'd posters.

They are all trolling from a left wing perspective.

I think it is telling.

[NYC_SKP]

144. Always interesting to see how "busy" they become closer to election time.

Pretty transparent, really.

[Better Believe It]

148. Do you think Homeland Security is drawing up the same list?

[joshcryer]

158. Doubtful, HHS is against the left.

And would presumably champion CONTELPRO or PSYOPS.

[cliffordu]

189. Kind of a non-sequiteur...???

self induced thread hijack??

[Fumesucker]

154. I have here in my hand a list

[joshcryer]

159. Eh, merely protecting myself from false flag PYSOPS from the right.

As undoubtedly these disruptor's are right wing agitators.

[Fumesucker]

161. Of course anyone who isn't deliriously happy with Obama is a right wing agitator.

Strangely enough, those posters who make me feel the most discouraged and hopeless about politics are the reflexive Obama defenders.

I heard enough of that crap about Dubya from Republicans to last me for the rest of my life, hearing it from Democrats about Obama is just amazingly depressing.

[joshcryer]

163. They've been PPR'd, they're obviously agitators.

If you think that they're innocently disrupting the forum, then I got a bridge to sell ya.

I have plenty of negative stuff to say about Obama (just read my journal), I'm not a "reflexive Obama defender."

I just dislike horribly done trash jobs on Obama. If you're going to trash him at least bring some honesty to the table.

[Fumesucker]

165. I watched Hannah Bell get TSed..

She was anything but a right wing agitator, one of the best researchers exposing right wing bullshit that's been on DU.

So don't tell me how fair and evenhanded the process is..

[joshcryer]

167. Well, it's possible these posters are left wing agitators like that person...

...but I don't buy it. I think they're pretending to be left wing to make DU look like a place where highly bigoted "left wing" hate comments are allowed.

Hannah Bell had a blow out, constantly posting poorly researched WSWS propaganda articles (which I was refuting there at the end, because the WSWS was blatantly making shit up), then finally posting poorly done North Korea propaganda.

As long as BBI doesn't post right wing sources again after the election season starts I doubt they'll be TS'd. But go down that road, and post blatant falsehoods? It's going to be interesting. I frankly am not championing that they be PPR'd. I think they bring entertainment at the least and have rec'd their more honest threads in the past.

[Fumesucker]

170. Well, when you have nothing left here but pragmatic moderate centrists..

I'm sure the echo chamber will be positively orgasmic..

I know I've been drifting away from DU for some time now, the only reason I'm still here at all is it's become a habit I carried over from the Cheney regency.

Hell, I've seen Skinner of all people promoting articles by right winger extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan..

[joshcryer]

172. I have other more liberal sites to go to for that.

I come here for US-centric political discussion. I'm not interested so much in disruptive falsehoods intended solely to get a rise out of people. There are a lot of good DUers here who support the President and I see no reason to attack them as is done so often in a passive-aggressive derisive sort of way.

[Fumesucker]

174. DU swings further to the right on nearly a daily basis..

As I said, Andrew Sullivan is now being admiringly held forth by at least one admin as someone from whom we should take political advice.

And yet people like you complain of "right wing agitators" posing as leftists.

At one time DU was a very good fit for me politically, I haven't changed my ideals and now I find DU becoming an ever poorer fit.

[joshcryer]

177. I don't see that at all.

I just look at any snapshot of GD and it looks as it's always looked, a diverse array of issues being raised by a diverse array of individuals.

What I do find is that in general there is a contingent who regularly posts criticisms of the Democratic administration (sometimes hyperbolic or downright unfactual), and tends to stay out of the other discussions almost entirely. I make friends on DU because I run across various other DUers who share the same kinds of ideals as me, in different threads.

My ideals have moved further to the left. I do not reveal most of my personal ideology here because I like DU and DUers and I have other places to vent about the issues that the planet faces.

[Fumesucker]

180. A quintessentially Republican idea straight from the Heritage Foundation..

Is now the hill many DUers want Democrats to die on..

I post OPs critical of Republicans and get crickets..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531711

[joshcryer]

181. Sort by replies. A lot of us post uncontroversial stuff that drops thanks to derision.

A good chunk, at least 20%-30% (visual inspection), are bashing the administration and are a slight against DUers. The rest are progressive. We had some really good progressive race posts recently, fascinatingly some of the Obama detractors jumped on a thread that tried to diminish race relations.

It's stark. People are trying to destroy DU.

[Fumesucker]

182. The ones I see doing the most damage to DU are those who constantly try to put a positive spin..

A positive spin on every single thing Obama does, he's not God, he's not even Jesus Christ or Tuvok.

I'm reminded of Will Rogers' quote about not belonging to an organized political party, trying to get liberals/progressives to march in lockstep just isn't going to happen no matter how much some people would like it to be so. From my demographic niche and where I live if I wasn't a contrary old coot I'd be a teabagger.

To paraphrase an old joke, two liberals, three opinions.

[joshcryer]

183. Those people are outnumbered though.

They're a distinct minority as far as I can tell. Most of Obama's supporters would admit it when they don't like his policies.

The damage is coming from the intentional factionalization, trying to pit us against one another.

One reason that liberals don't take control is that we factionalize so easily, with just a little effort, pow, gone. Hell, compare the Democrats to the Republicans and it's as if the Democrats are really three parties in one (Left, Right, and Middle, and yes there are left Democrats, they make up more than a third of Democrats in Congress, even).

[brentspeak]

175. And yet you see a reason for attacking good DUers who don't march in lockstep

with Obama's Republican-lite policies.

Speaking of psyops: You are the same "joshcryer" on this site who bizarrely defends the presence of unwelcome Black Bloc agitators who crash Occupy protests, right?

[joshcryer]

176. Who am I attacking?

I defended the bloc because it was being used by agitators to divide and conquer occupiers.

I stand by my defense of the black bloc and my criticism of those who use highly agitating language to divide groups.

I guess you were one of those who had moral panic about the flag burning?

[brentspeak]

178. "Agitators"...like Chris Hedges?

[joshcryer]

179. Nah, he just bought the line, probably due to ignorance.

His article is effectively refuted by David Gerber.

[Mimosa]

193. Lord, I miss her

She was strong and her knowledge of America's history and global economics was astounding. She and i tussled but she was never nasty.

[Better Believe It]

145. So you are claiming that my posted article is written by a paid Republican operative

who is pretending to be progressive?

If you have any evidence that Dylan Blaylock, the Communications Director at Government Accountability Project, is a paid operative for right-wing forces please present it.

And if you also think that the Government Accountability Project is some sort of right-wing group please present your evidence to back up that notion.

[SomethingFishy]

149. I think he/she meant that you were the paid operative..

Because no one with any sense would call Obama out on anything. The man is perfect. I have yet to see an Obama policy that the "non paid operatives" don't love. And they have the links to back it up too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

150. Expect a silent chorus of crickets..but more accusations of disloyalty for not toeing the party line

[NYC_SKP]

153. sacrebleu!

[cliffordu]

188. What you just said is one of the reasons

why you are a treasured friend.

Many here would be better off trusting your opinion and council

than listening to the fucking gurus and the pseudo purists.

[Leopolds Ghost]

203. I strongly disagree with your assertion that critics of the Administration are paid disruptors.

My Father was a government whistleblower for the Government Accountability Project.

He died of ill health after fighting a 20-year fight for the sort of thing Obama is now putting people in jail for under the Espionage Act.

I am finding less and less reason to be active on DU.

[Leopolds Ghost]

204. Oh, and the government agency my dad went up against

was dissolved for corruption. Fucking DISSOLVED. After both Democrats and Republicans put themselves in contempt of court defending it. He sacrificed his career for the sake of people sh*tposting on line who demean whistleblowers and have no clue what the leaks were about because they are only interested in what the Party has to say about the issues of the day.

[NYC_SKP]

209. I hope you remain active here, you do much good work. (nt)

[Leopolds Ghost]

210. Still active, but I have

Family affairs to attend to (an uncle passed away). So I'll be checking in on an irregular basis for at least a week.

[joshcryer]

135. By this standard Richard Armitage and Robert Novak are whistleblowers.

[Better Believe It]

152. Really? When were they opposed to torture?

[ProSense]

156. Really?

"Really? When were they opposed to torture?"

...he was "opposed to torture"? Why did he wait until 2007 to reveal this information?


Why didn't he make this known prior to 2004 election? Could he have prevented more people from being tortured?

Why didn't he release this information when people were fighting the torture amendment in 2006?

What I see is a person who was out for personal gain.

<...>

Whistleblowing on Torture

In December 2007 Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[10] where he was described as participating in the capture and questioning of Abu Zubaydah, who is accused of having been an aide to Osama Bin Laden. According to Kiriakou, based on what he had been told by the CIA, it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to extract answers to an interrogator's questions from Abu Zubaydah.

...He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably 30, 35 seconds... and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that Allah had visit him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[11]

Eventually it became known that Abu Zubaydah had in fact been waterboarded at least 83 times,[12] and that little or no useful extra information may have been gained by "harsh methods".[13][14] However, even when Kiriakou was under the mistaken belief from the CIA that Zubayda was waterboarded only once, he acknowledge that even the relatively mild single instance of waterboarding he described constituted a form of torture and expressed reservations about whether the value of the information was worth the damage done to the United States' reputation.

Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding, and the relatively mild nature of it, were widely repeated, and paraphrased,[15][16] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public affairs shows, on the topics of interrogation, and counter-terrorism.

On the second to last page of his 2010 memoir entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror[2] Kiriakou acknowledged that he was not present during Abu Zubaydah's interrogations, and had no first-hand knowledge of Abu Zubaydah's waterboardings:

I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time. [17][18]

Charged

On Monday, January 23, 2012, Kiriakou was charged with repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee, Deuce Martinez, in classified activities. [19][20][21] In addition to leaking the names and roles of CIA officers, Kiriakou was alleged to have lied to the CIA to get his book published. [22]

On 5 April, he was indicted. The indictment charges Kiriakou with 1 count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 3 counts of violating the Espionage Act, and 1 count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou#Whistleblowing_on_Torture

Even his limited knowledge would have had a much bigger impact in 2004 and during the 2006 debate on the torture bill.

[girl gone mad]

199. "Why did he wait until 2007 to reveal this information? "

Uh, maybe because he thought he would be safer under the "pro-transparency" government of Obama??

Duh.

[joshcryer]

157. I didn't know this guy was indicted for being opposed to torture.

[Better Believe It]

166. For opposing it and helping to expose it with super secret documents! Throw the key away!

Shoot him at sunrise for treason, espionage, un-Americanism and leftyism!

[joshcryer]

169. If he is convicted and then his sentence isn't commuted...

...then you might have a point.

[Better Believe It]

171. How much hard labor time do you think this lefty liberal should get?

[joshcryer]

173. John Kiriakou lied about how many times Zubaydah was waterboarded. He's no lefty.

He was indicted for revealing Deuce Martinez's identity.

His comments were used as fodder for the right wing for years, trying to make water boarding out to be "no big deal."

[Better Believe It]

196. So you believe he engaged in espionage on behalf of what nation or terrorist group?

[unionworks]

195. Bradley Manning

[Leopolds Ghost]

205. Did Nash of CSNY write this song about Manning?

Wow...

[unionworks]

208. Co-wrote it with the other guy

If I'm not mistaken. What a great video. Crosby Stills and Nash are coming here to Erie Pa in June, for a concert on the shore of Lake Eerie under the stars. One of the few American gigs they are doing. Yours truly will be there if I have to tread water in the surf to watch.

[mzmolly]

211. Good.

eom

[BlueIris]

212. So much for transparency.

The Admin won't be able to silence them all.