This Is How A Police State Protects “Secrets” - Marcy Wheeler/Salon

[WillyT]

This is how a police state protects “secrets”: Jeffrey Sterling, the CIA and up to 80 years on circumstantial evidence
Sterling's conviction should chill anyone who believes in investigative reporting in a free society
Marcy Wheeler - Salon
Wednesday, Jan 28, 2015 11:18 AM PST


Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling leaves the Alexandria Federal Courthouse with his wife, Holly, after being convicted on all nine counts he faced of leaking classified details of an operation to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.(Credit: AP)

<snip>

The participants in the economy of shared tips and intelligence in Washington D.C., breathed a collective sigh of relief when, on January 12, the government announced it would not force James Risen to testify in the trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling. “Press freedom was safe! Our trade in leaks is safe!” observers seemed to conclude, and they returned to their squalid celebration of an oppressive Saudi monarch.

That celebration about information sharing is likely premature. Because, along the way to the conviction of Sterling this week on all nine counts – including seven counts under the Espionage Act — something far more banal yet every bit as dear to D.C.’s economy of secrets may have been criminalized: unclassified tips.

To understand why that’s true, you need to know a bit about how the Department of Justice larded on charges against Sterling to get to what represents a potential 80-year maximum sentence (though he’s unlikely to get that). Sterling was accused — and ultimately convicted — of leaking two related things: First, information about the Merlin operation to deal flawed nuclear blueprints to Iran, as well as the involvement of a Russian engineer referred to as Merlin in the trial. In addition to that, the government charged Sterling separately for leaking a document (one which the FBI never found, in anyone’s possession): a letter Merlin included along with the nuclear blueprints he wrapped in a newspaper and left in the mailbox of Iran’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So the government convicted Sterling of leaking two things: information about the operation, and a letter that was used in the operation.

Then, having distinguished the operation from the letter, DOJ started multiplying. They charged Sterling for leaking the operation to Risen, then charged him for causing Risen to attempt to write a 2003 New York Times article about it, then charged him for causing Risen to publish a book chapter about it: one leak, three counts of espionage.

Then they charged Sterling for improperly retaining the letter (again, FBI never found it, not in CIA’s possession, not in Sterling’s possession, and Merlin purportedly destroyed his version before anyone could find it in his possession). Then DOJ charged Sterling for leaking the letter to Risen, then charged him for causing Risen to attempt to write a 2003 New York Times article including it, then charged him for causing Risen to publish a book chapter including verbatim excerpts from it (apparently Risen is a better investigator than FBI, because he found a copy): one letter, four more counts under the Espionage Act.

Altogether, seven counts of spying, for one leak.

Here’s the really scary part though: the jury convicted Sterling based entirely on circumstantial evidence: there was not one shred of evidence showing Sterling handing Risen classified information on the operation, the Russian asset, or the letter that Risen found but FBI could not.

<snip>

More: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/28/this_is_how_a_police_state_protects_secrets_jeffrey_sterling_the_cia_and_up_to_80_years_on_circumstantial_evidence/

[Glassunion]

1. If this were a police state, you would not have the freedom to post what you just did

and stuff.

[markpkessinger]

13. After reading your headline, I was about to go off on you . . .

. . . then I saw the 'sarcasm' tag!

[KingCharlemagne]

127. I know you are being sarcastic, but I wish to remind DU of Hannah Arendt's observation that

totalitarian police states spy upon their citizens not to catch them in the act per se but, instead, to assemble and compile evidence for later use when such evidence is needed. (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so apologize in advance to Arendt experts who read this.) A police state may be perfectly willing to allow us to post thoughts here, secure in the knowledge that it is sweeping everything up for later use when, say, the one-party Republican Party state is consolidated.

It's been quite awhile since I slogged through Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism (highly recommended for those with the time, concentration and mental chops for the task), but Chris Hedges deftly paraphrased, and extrapolated from, her thoughts about a year ago:

The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” is not, in the end, to discover crimes, “but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.” And because Americans’ emails, phone conversations, Web searches and geographical movements are recorded and stored in perpetuity in government databases, there will be more than enough “evidence” to seize us should the state deem it necessary. This information waits like a deadly virus inside government vaults to be turned against us. It does not matter how trivial or innocent that information is. In totalitarian states, justice, like truth, is irrelevant.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37312.htm

[Scuba]

172. +1

[daleanime]

201. Thanks....

Will add to my reading list!

[erronis]

221. Probably also with the "encouragement" of the populace to visit taboo places

Can this be entrapment?

If the link features some idyllic new world?

Such as socialism, progressive-ism, real democracy (vs. our paid-for version).

OK, comrade. You've visited the NYTimes.com and the Guardian.com sites 3 times this month. Off to the gulag with you.

[Glassunion]

224. My sarcasm was not a jab at the state of things, but one at those who say they have

nothing to hide, that we don't live in a police state, lover their "freedumb fondles" at the TSA, and overall feel that they are being kept safe, that it is not the creeping death of a thousand cuts.

Give me enough information on someone and I can make them appear guilty of something.

[KingCharlemagne]

226. Yeah, I got that. I wished to underline the serious point I thought (correctly) you were

trying to make by arguing how, even though we are 'allowed' to post dissent here on DU, a 'police state' will be happy to let us do so for now, secure in the knowledge that anything we have posted here can and will be used against us at some indeterminate point in the future.

That is, Arendt effectively refutes those who would say that sites like DU and DailyKos somehow 'prove' that we don't yet have a fully realized police state, as does what this government did to Jose Padilla and continues to do at Guantanamo -- say 'goodbye' to habeas corpus -- and with its Freikorps -- both federal (think CIA) and municipal (think St. Louis County PD) -- running about with no checks on their activity or seemingly even their budgets.

[WillyT]

236. + 1,000,000,000

Thanks.

[Mnemosyne]

2. My head hurts. nt

[GeorgeGist]

3. No secret ...

the message is clear.

[Rex]

17. +1

[riderinthestorm]

4. Great article. Really spells it all out. Thanks for this Willy! K&R nt

[WillyT]

14. You Are Quite Welcome...

[Octafish]

5. KICK AND REC AND BOOKMARK FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY AND THE NATION.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS HEARSAY'S SCAPEGOAT.

[elias49]

6. How can anyone defend this miscarriage of justice?

It stinks. I wonder what kind of jury screening was done for this case? Up to 80 years in prison based on circumstantial evidence. WTF? Police state, indeed. Is it any wonder that Edward Snowden stays away? There were so many naive posters yelling for Snowden to come back to the US to stand trial. Seriously? It's laughable to think that there'sdbe anything 'fair' about a Snowden trial. As a matter of fact, the public would probably not be privy to anything that went on during such a trial. "National security", you know?
Which is another way of saying "We don't want anybody to know the shit we pull."

[randome]

7. Well, except for that pesky trial and the jury and the judge and stuff.

Oh, and the laws against leaking military secrets. Other than that, yes, we are living in a police state.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLP24]

8. You're talking about an outdated Espionage Act passed during the red scare

designed with the intentions of enforcing it on anti-war socialists. Used it & enforced it against a man distrubiting leaf-lets opposing American intervention during the Russian Civil War. It was an era of troubling free speech precedents.

You remember "yell fire in a theater"? That came from an Espionage Act Supreme Court case which involved a man protesting World War I.

Later in life Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his man thanks to this man

Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (December 7, 1885 – February 8, 1957) was an American professor of law, judicial philosopher and civil rights advocate. Defending freedom of speech, he was described by Senator Joseph McCarthy as "dangerous" to the United States.[1] Legal scholar Richard Primus called Chafee “possibly the most important First Amendment scholar of the first half of the twentieth century.”[2]

Chafee wrote several works about civil liberties, including:

Free Speech (1920)
Free Speech in the United States, 1941 (expanded edition of Freedom of Speech)
Government and Mass Communications, 1947
The Blessings of Liberty, 1956

Freedom of Speech in War Times (1919)

Chafee's first significant work (Freedom of Speech)[6] established modern First Amendment theory. Inspired by the United States' suppression of radical speech and ideas during the First World War, Chafee edited and updated a collection of several of his journal articles.[7] In these individual articles-cum-chapters, he assessed significant World War I cases, including those of Emma Goldman.

He revised and reissued this work in 1941 as Free Speech in the United States, which became a leading treatise on First Amendment law. His scholarship on civil liberties was a major influence on Oliver Wendell Holmes' and Louis Brandeis' post-World War I jurisprudence, which first established the First Amendment as a significant source of civil liberties. Chafee met with Justice Holmes after the Schenck case 249 U.S. 47 (1919), which upheld a conviction of an activist who encouraged draft resistance, and convinced him that free speech needed greater consideration. Shortly thereafter, Holmes joined Brandeis in a dissent in another World War I dissent case;[8] this dissent is recognized as the foundation of modern First Amendment jurisprudence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_Chafee

The fact that the law has been dusted off & used like never before is very troubling indeed and actually backs up the OPs claim of a police state. Not less.

Trading with the Enemy Act was also past a long with this & a more troubling version of the Espionage Act which thankfully much of it has been removed. Cuba remains the only country left on Trading With The Enemy Act

[Octafish]

11. randome may be conflicted when it comes to the law of the land.

Here he calls the Constitution "old and outmoded":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023793016#post9

Don't know where he's coming from, but that seems to me to be an odd way for someone concerned about the First Amendment and its role in government oversight to feel.

[Rex]

18. He is concerned about the 1st Amendment? News to me.

So far I've never seen that poster defend anything but the NSA and the other ABC agencies on DU. Thanks for the link, that just about explains everything I've thought about said poster.

[randome]

21. The Constitution is not immutable. And Sterling's case has nothing to do with it.

He betrayed his country and a fellow agent. Even Congress didn't think his tale was worth pursuing so that should tell you where his 'whistleblower' inclinations lie.

Every crook in history claims they are being unfairly persecuted. Sterling is not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

25. It's got everything to do with the Constitution.

Whistleblowers who leak even unclassified information that embarrasses the government are now fair game for destruction and imprisonment, even journalists doing their job.

Meanwhile the traitors who lied America into war and handed taxpayers like me the bill for the Banksters who emptied the treasury and looted the Wall Street casino all walk free.

Truth is what democracy needs to operate. Secret government is un-American and un-Constitutional.

[randome]

26. 'Embarrassed'? So you don't care about the agent who was outed?

There should be no penalty for that? Why did Sterling go to Congress first and Congress basically said, "Meh"?

You can't simply call yourself a whistleblower and expect that to be a 'Get Out Of Jail' card.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

79. What's the name of that agent?

Since he's been outed by Sterling and all...it should be like Plame then - right out there.

[randome]

81. No idea. What difference does the name make?

I suppose it's possible that the jury and the judge decided no harm was done but decided to jail Sterling anyway, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

86. Uhm you're the one who said Sterling outed his own agent.

Back it up.

If he's such a traitor like Cheney was with Plame, his name should be easy to find.

[randome]

101. 'Outing' an agent means giving the name to someone who is not authorized to know it.

The name was in the book. The book was in the hands of publishers. (At least I think it was, again, not sure about the timelines here.)

Once the name was known outside the CIA, Sterling loses all control over who has access to the information. The intelligence asset is compromised and to safeguard his/her life, the CIA must act as if the information is known to the 'enemy'. Because they don't know if it is or not and doing nothing endangers lives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

111. Provide me with the facts that back you up

Otherwise it's a lie as far as I can tell.

It's either in Risens book or it isn't.

[randome]

113. I may not have everything right, no problem admitting that.

Are we talking about 2 books here, or is Risen's book really Sterling's? I'm a bit confused and Google is surprisingly unhelpful in putting it all together comprehensively.

Risen's book mentioned the agent 'Merlin' but I haven't read the book so I don't know how explicit the information was. Obviously the book material was seen by publishers first.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

114. In the indictment, Sterling's book proposal is detailed. Some posters here are

confused because the OP article is a sloppy source.....

Sterling was convicted on 9 counts. Wheeler only talks about 7 counts...so posters who never bothered to read the indictment, or see what he was convicted of, still think it's only about the leak.

[randome]

117. Thank you. It's helpful to know my confusion is not completely without merit.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

122. Well... OP article is a lesson to those who would quote such a sloppy source....

Marcy Wheeler should have disclosed that she was only talking about SOME of the charges.

You and I are talking about ALL.

When I opine on legal cases, I tend to give the court documents for this very reason.

[Luminous Animal]

195. She did. Read the article.

Because, along the way to the conviction of Sterling this week on all nine counts – including seven counts under the Espionage Act

She also posts a link to the indictment IN THE ARTICLE.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/sterling/indict.pdf

[msanthrope]

199. But she only discussed 7 counts--ignoring the other 2, and thus, from this thread, it's pretty

apparent that many of her readers simply presumed that there were only 7 counts...all related to the leak. I blame Marcy Wheeler, as opposed to DUers, for missing the fact that there are 9 counts. Are you blaming DUers?

It is incredibly sloppy of her to mislead her readership. It should have been apparent in her opening paragraph that she only intended to speak of 7 of the 9 counts....and a pretty piss poor presentation of a legal case to cherry pick counts.

Marcy tried to liveblog the Scooter Libby trial...and it was painful reading on Kos. How sad she's defending the same actions, because, Obama.

[ND-Dem]

115. sterling doesn't have a book.

[riderinthestorm]

120. Sterling has a book proposal only. Risen has the published book

So noted that you nor msanthrope can name the "outed" agent.

Stop with the lies then please.

[randome]

126. By specifying how the agent delivered secret messages, Sterling in effect outed him/her.

It would not be difficult for an Iranian investigator to then find the person who was sending messages. The exact name is not important, I would think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

129. Oh FFS, now you're just making shit up.

[randome]

203. Now I remember where I found that: in the article linked to by the OP.

Sterling was accused — and ultimately convicted — of leaking two related things: First, information about the Merlin operation to deal flawed nuclear blueprints to Iran, as well as the involvement of a Russian engineer referred to as Merlin in the trial. In addition to that, the government charged Sterling separately for leaking a document (one which the FBI never found, in anyone’s possession): a letter Merlin included along with the nuclear blueprints he wrapped in a newspaper and left in the mailbox of Iran’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So the government convicted Sterling of leaking two things: information about the operation, and a letter that was used in the operation.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

220. 'Google is surprisingly unhelpful in putting it all together comprehensively.'

At least you admit to not knowing anything about the topic and are relying on google to help you win an argument you seem to not understand very well.

[randome]

223. I probably understand it as well as anyone who is not an attorney.

Like you (I presume), I only know of the case by what I read. Sterling does not pass my 'Heroes Test'. There are too many discrepancies. Need I emphasize IMO?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

143. When did outing an agent become illegal? When Plame was outed by Novak, it took the prosecutor

just a matter of days to find out who did it and they were never even charged.

[randome]

144. Novak was a journalist and so was given 'extra-special-super-duper' consideration.

He should have gone to jail, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

158. Gone to jail too? The leaker didn't even go to jail!

The leaker wasn't even charged.

[randome]

160. He should have gone to jail like Sterling.

No public service was performed by his outing Valerie Plame.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

149. They can't even back up that charge

But it sure hasn't stopped them from repeating it over and over and over....

[randome]

155. From the indictment.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/sterling/indict.pdf

JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING,
the defendant herein, having lawful possession of, access to, and control over information relating to the national defense, namely information about Classified Program No. I and Human Asset No.1, did willfully attempt to communicate, deliver and transmit the same information to any person of the general public not entitled to receive said information, including foreign adversaries, through the publication, distribution and delivery of a national newspaper article, all the while having reason to believe that said information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation.

14. Human Asset No. I, a person known to the Grand Jury, moved to the United States in the early 1990s. Human Asset No. 1 agreed to work for the CIA and provided highly valued information to the CIA. Human Asset No. 1 later agreed to assist the CIA operationally in part to impede the progress of the weapons capabilities of certain countries and in return for monetary consideration.

16. Between on or about November 14, 1998, through on or about May 2000, defendant STERLING became an operations officer assigned to Human Asset No. 1 and Classified Program No.1. At the time of his assignment, defendant STERLING had no advanced scientific or engineering education or training nor did he ever seek or express any interest in receiving such education or training. In or about May 2000, the CIA reassigned defendant STERLING from Human Asset No. 1 and Classified Program No.1. Upon his reassignment, defendant STERLING was no longer authorized to receive classified information or possess classified documents concerning Human Asset No. 1 and Classified Program No.1.

The Scheme to Disclose Classified Information
18. Beginning in approximately August 2000, and lasting through January 2006, defendant STERLING pursued various administrative and civil actions against the CIA concerning alleged employment-related racial discrimination and decisions made by the CIA's Publications Review Board regarding defendant STERLING's attempt to publish his memoirs. Defendant STERLING's anger and resentment towards the CIA grew over time as the CIA rejected the defendant's settlement offers and made other legal decisions. In retaliation for the CIA's refusal to settle on terms favorable to defendant STERLING, as well as other decisions made by the CIA, defendant STERLING caused and attempted to cause the publication of classified information about Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No. 1 that defendant STERLING characterized in a false and misleading manner.

26. In or about February 2002, defendant STERLING met with Author A, including at least one meeting at Author A's office in Washington, D.C. One purpose of the meeting(s) was to discuss defendant STERLING's civil litigation against the CIA. Another purpose of the meeting(s) was to provide to Author A documents relating to defendant STERLING's employment at the CIA, including at least one redacted, unclassified document that referenced Human Asset No.1, although not by name.

36. On or about March 5, 2003, consistent with his secrecy and non-disclosure agreements with the CIA, defendant STERLING met with two staffers of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and disclosed classified information about Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No.1. However, in doing so, defendant STERLING falsely characterized certain facts and circumstances relating to Classified Program No.1, falsely reported that he had believed Classified Program No. 1 to have been flawed from its inception based solely upon his mischaracterization of a single remark by a participant in Classified Program No.1, and claimed, based upon that false information, that Classified Program No. 1 may have enhanced the weapons capabilities of Country A.

42. On or about April 30, 2003, United States government officials met with Author A and representatives of Author A's employer and informed them of the classified nature of the information in Author A's possession, the national security implications associated with disclosure of that information and the imminent danger that Human Asset No. 1 potentially would face by its disclosure. During that meeting, Author A stated in so many words that he possessed a copy of a classified document relating to Classified Program No.1. Defendant STERLING had disclosed and then falsely and misleadingly characterized this classified document to Author A as a means of corroborating his false allegations about Classified Program No.1 and further inducing Author A to write and attempt to publish a newspaper article about Classified Program No.1.

53. Between on or about November 17,2004, and on or about November 21,2004, Author A traveled to Country B in order to obtain more information about Classified Program No.1. Defendant STERLING enabled Author A's travel by providing Author A certain classified information regarding the operational details of Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No.1, including a hotel at which Human Asset No. 1 stayed in connection with Classified Program No.1.

The Substantive Violation
55. Between on or about December 24,2005, and on or about January 5, 2006, in the Eastern District of Virginia, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, the defendant herein, having lawful possession of, access to, and control over information relating to the national defense, namely information about Classified Program No.1 and Human Asset No. I, did willfully cause to be communicated, delivered and transmitted the same information to any person of the general public not entitled to receive said information, including foreign adversaries, through the publication, distribution and delivery of Author A's book to the Eastern District of Virginia, all the while having reason to believe that said information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation.

[bigtree]

165. so the 'Human Asset' was the Russian?

...where did the government establish damage done to this 'asset' which matches your own description of some grievous harm?

I see the conviction, but what I'm not seeing is proof of some serious damage to ANYTHING substantial or important (other than this absurd blueprint scheme); anything which should cause people to recoil in disgust from Sterling; nothing to seriously discredit him, in my view, even if you believe the prosecution. maybe a violation of the espionage act (if true), but not something that Americans should be outraged about. If you believe this was a cynical frame-up, sting operation for a non-existent nuclear weapons program (as I do) there's really no there there.

[randome]

166. Compromising an identity is not 'greivous harm' but it is potentially dangerous.

And illegal. And immoral.

42. On or about April 30, 2003, United States government officials met with Author A and representatives of Author A's employer and informed them of the classified nature of the information in Author A's possession, the national security implications associated with disclosure of that information and the imminent danger that Human Asset No. 1 potentially would face by its disclosure.

As I stated elsewhere, the CIA can't simply shrug its shoulders and hope for the best. Once the information is in unclassified hands, they must act to protect Human Asset #1's life. And that's how it should be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

169. most crimes require some proof of harm actually done

...in this case, for folks interested in and concerned about the actions of our government, the harm comes in the form and nature of their scheme, not in the revelation of that plan.

What I asked you is to show me where there was harm done to the 'human asset' which should concern us here.

[riderinthestorm]

170. I see nothing there that Sterling outed an agent.

The allegation is that Sterling gave Risen the actual name. That's not at all clear.

We don't even know if it was Sterling since even Risen says he got the info from multiple sources, including those on the Senate Intelligence committee.

Remember, this case is ENTIRELY circumstantial.

[bigtree]

175. we're making the assumption, for the sake of argument

...that the charges he outed an agent were true. I don't believe so, but, the jury obviously did.

What I want to know is what harm was done to the 'asset' which the poster can point to which would justify all of the concern expressed about their fate to folks here. I argue that the harm to the asset isn't even evident, much less apparent - the harm done, in this case, looks like the government's self-inflicted wound.

[riderinthestorm]

178. I understand. I'm just attacking even that base premise nt

[msanthrope]

182. Assumption? He was convicted. You may make an assumption, but understand something.....

you and rider seem to be suggesting that James Risen let an innocent man got to jail....facing an 80 year term....to defend his source.

[randome]

180. It's also circumstantial to see someone holding a smoking gun but without seeing the gun fired.

It was enough for the jury. Sterling performed no public service by 'complaining' about a program years after he was no longer a part of it and when said program was legal to start with. If you read the original charges and the conviction, you can see that it was about much more than a program that Sterling didn't approve of. There was also the matter of his trying to obstruct the investigation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

190. interesting

well, randome, I'm going to have to bow out and get some rest (working all night).

Thanks for a spirited and, I think, productive discussion.

[randome]

192. Interesting it has been.

We could use some real whistleblowers in the world these days instead of these "is-he-or-isn't-he" gray areas. I'm afraid that Ellsberg set the bar too high (not his fault) and now everyone has romantic ideas of being the 'next' Ellsberg without examining all the ramifications.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

88. Congress said "meh"

because Congress is not the least bit interested in opening up a war crimes investigation, since so many of them went along with the war crimes.

[randome]

98. What war crimes are implied by Sterling? None that I'm aware of.

He revealed a plan to feed invalid intel to Iran. The only crime he revealed was his own ineptitude.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

105. Sorry, you are correct, digging into the facts

I was confusing this case with another.

So, what Sterling may have revealed and what Congress didn't want to know about was the fact that a CIA operation to screw up the Iranian nuclear program by giving them bad designs had instead provided major breakthroughs for them when they figured out the designs were bad, but that the tech data showed them how to improve their program.

Yeah, I can see how neither the Congress of the CIA would want any of that to come out.

[Octafish]

119. Hence, the conviction.

What's the matter? Aren't you happy that Secret Government and its sundry Secret Policy Beneficiaries remain free to continue to make profits without cease off wars without end?

[Kelvin Mace]

124. I'm on your side

It seems to smell of pay back.

My last line should be read in a very sarcastic tone.

[riderinthestorm]

132. The only ones who don't recognize this as a vicious vindictive act

Are choosing deliberately to not "see".

This is designed to put the fear of God into the intelligence agencies so they never ever try to reveal government malfeasance or stupidity especially on the level of giving H-bomb plans to Iran.

[Kelvin Mace]

151. Yep.

I run into this every time I try and point out that "law" enforcement and the three-letter agencies are out of control.

My last attempt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026011967

[Rex]

222. And they seem to be the ones that defend the NSA/CIA with unusual vigor

then when pressed, they admit to using google to win an argument they seem to know very little about. At least it is transparent for all to see in this sub-thread.

Seriously, I will never understand boot licking authoritarians that sit at home and pretend they are Maxwell Smart.

[randome]

20. No, I'm talking about a national security agent giving away national security secrets.

There should be repercussions for that, and there are. Sterling went to Congress who didn't think he had a case. And then he outed an agent in the field. (Unsure about the timeline here, but that's in essence what he did.)

It's a clear case of an absolute IDIOT thinking he could get away with selling national security secrets. It's not a tale about a whistleblower at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLP24]

23. You said except for the law, jury, judge, etc its a police state

(paraphrasing)

I posted the early troubling history of the Espionage Act which is one of the laws that he was charged with and convicted of.

As to what he did, I have no idea myself nor have a 100% faith he is guilty considering it was circumstantial and prior invoking of "state secrets" & the troubling times they have chosen to do so. I'm not comfortable with the corruption & now the disturbing ability to hide it & punish those severely that do.

[randome]

28. He was also punished for outing an agent.

There should be repercussions for that. And there are. Congress didn't think he was a whistleblower so who gets to decide that he was? Sterling himself? That sounds...convenient.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

30. 80 Years ??? - How... Reasonable Of You...

[randome]

32. Don't expect me to support that kind of sentencing. I don't.

But maybe if Sterling had simply told the truth like someone who values truth over all else, like...oh, say, a whistleblower...wait a minute. Something's not right here.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

36. You Don't See Something Wrong With The System ???

I'm afraid this is just another version on "making an example" of them.

And remember...

There was a jury and prosecutor in both the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

Did not work out so well...

[randome]

42. Juries -both on DU and in the judicial system- are not perfect.

But it sounds to me like Sterling is guilty of, at a minimum, revealing the identity of a field agent. That's enough to put him behind bars, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

46. Even If That Information Was Publicly Available ??? And How Come The FBI...

Could Not Find The Letter ??? - Sounds Like Risen Should Get A Job Offer From The FBI.

[randome]

48. The government pressed Risen to reveal his sources. When he refused, they basically gave up.

You know, like police states normally do.

But Sterling's explanation for why he had such extensive communications with Risen apparently did not sit well with the jury or the judge. Often the most harsh sentencing is reserved for those who willingly obfuscate and deflect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

50. And Maybe... Just Maybe... The Reason Some Will "willingly obfuscate and deflect."

Is because they KNOW something is Un-American... And Violates The Spirit of the Constitution that they swore to uphold...

Just maybe... they are worried that we are becoming a country that we were never sold on... We became short-changed... dis-illusioned...

Maybe that's one of the reasons Populism is on the rise in both parties now. Curious.

And the voting totals in 2016 are in MAJOR question.

Those that think Hillary is a lock... are deeply deluded.

[msanthrope]

59. Tell us how interdicting Iran's nuclear capacity is un-American? nt

[WillyT]

237. Interdicting AMERICA'S Nuclear Program May Be Un-American... Iran Has It's Own Sovereignty...

So yes... Interdicting Iran's Nuclear program IS Un-American.

Unless we are finally willing to admit out loud that we are now the world's policeman.

Would love to put that to a vote.

Oh... right...

[JonLP24]

39. I certainly wouldn't want Congress to decide what's good for the American people

Like they have never been involved in coverups before.

I'm sure Daniel Ellsburg would have been better off taking the Pentagon Papers to Congress. Since he didn't, let's retroactively punish him.

[randome]

40. I don't think we had whistleblower protections back then, did we?

And Ellsberg saved lives, he didn't endanger them as Sterling did.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JonLP24]

43. We have far less than we did then as evidenced by this thread

and the President using the Epsionage Act than every President combined.

Those signing include Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the top-secret “Pentagon Papers” — a pivotal event in public awareness and reaction to the war, but barely a footnote in the history the Pentagon is telling. The Pentagon also leaves out the illegal measures the Nixon administration took to prevent their publication, or how Ellsberg and another leaker were tried on espionage charges.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/28/the-pentagon-s-pathetic-vietnam-whitewash.html

He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years for Ellsberg, 35 years for Russo. Their trial commenced in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973, presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. Ellsberg tried to claim that the documents were illegally classified to keep them not from an enemy but from the American public. However, that argument was ruled "irrelevant". Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. His "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

[WillyT]

238. Thank You For That !!!

[Kelvin Mace]

89. Huh?

It's a clear case of an absolute IDIOT thinking he could get away with selling national security secrets

I don't see anything about him being paid for the information he leaked to Risen.

[randome]

94. His book that he was trying to sell.

Using Risen as cover to say "The information is already out there and I have no idea how it happened!"

Neither the jury nor the judge bought it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

97. But there is no mention of "selling" secrets in the indictment or conviction

so this is just your view of the issue, correct?

[randome]

99. Yes, it is. Using classified intel as a means to gain money is the same, IMO.

There would be no book -and no payoff- if he didn't try to publish this info.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

103. To clarify: My question was whether he

was accused in the indictment or found guilty of "selling" classified material.

Since your arguments here are based on strict readings of the law, was he charged and/or convicted of "selling state secrets"?

[randome]

104. My arguments are NOT based on strict readings of the law since I'm not an attorney.

I'm only speaking from what I hope is a highly objective standpoint and I'm only in this thread because I learn a lot from polarizing issues like this one.

And I must have mis-spoke about the book. Is the only book we're talking about Risen's? That's all I can find info on right now. (I'm a bit dyslexic, so give me a break!) Sterling was fired from the CIA in 2002 and so his giving information to Risen that only he knew was likely retaliation for that.

It certainly wasn't to 'safeguard America' or any such nonsense since Risen's book came out four years after Sterling was fired.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

109. Well, that was going to be my next question

What was the title of the book Sterling wrote were he financially benefited from the "selling" of classified material by virtue of book royalties?

Sterling was fired after filing a racial discrimination complaint. When he went to court to fight the firing and sued for racial discrimination, the government got the case dismissed by claiming that examining the evidence would reveal state secrets.

From the AP:

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal on Monday from a former covert CIA officer who accused the agency of race discrimination.

Jeffrey Sterling, who is black, had sued CIA director Porter Goss and 10 employees. A judge dismissed the case on grounds that the litigation would require the disclosure of highly classified information.

Justices refused without comment to consider reinstating Sterling’s lawsuit.

In November, the court refused to take up a similar case involving former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who claimed she was fired for reporting wrongdoing. The Justice Department claimed then too that allowing the lawsuit to go forward would threaten “state secrets,” or national security.

That seems awfully convenient to me. And we all know that the CIA is not a vindictive organization who might bear a grudge against any employee or citizen who aired their dirty laundry, right?

[randome]

210. His book was his memoirs that the CIA refused to give him permission to publish.

So he was trying to make money off his previous employment. No problem with that but then why leak information to Risen if not to be able to say later, "Oh, hey, that information was already published by a reporter so there's no harm now, is there?"

The jury did not believe his attempts to obfuscate the matter.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

118. Actually...Sterling's attempt to publish is in the indictment...there's also

a bit of confusion over the sloppy source of the OP...

Wheeler forgets to mention to her readership that Sterling wasn't just convicted on the 7 counts she writes about...he was convicted on 9 counts....she conveniently forgets the ones she can't defend.

So if you're using Wheeler as a source, you aren't talking about all the charges.

[Kelvin Mace]

121. Thanks, I guess I will have to plow

through the tedious indictment papers to get the whole story.

[msanthrope]

125. I blame Wheeler on this one..she should have disclosed to her

readership that she was only writing about 7 of the 9 convictions. Actually...the indictment is a hoot. Talk about a case officer off the rails....

www.fas.org/sgp/jud/sterling/indict.pdf

[Kelvin Mace]

148. Thank you for the link

[Luminous Animal]

198. Msanthrope did not read the article. Wheeler does indeed, at the beginning of the article

mention that he was convicted on 9 counts… 7 under the Espionage Act. Msanthrope also entirely misses the point of why Wheeler focuses on those seven. Either Msanthrope did not read the article or she read it sloppily.

Because, along the way to the conviction of Sterling this week on all nine counts – including seven counts under the Espionage Act

[msanthrope]

207. But it's apparent from this thread that Wheeler is unclear--and I blame Wheeler, rather than DUers

for missing the fact that Sterling wasn't just convicted on the 7 counts she deigns to discuss.

It's sloppy of Wheeler to cherrypick counts because it gives the idea--which was certainly and obviously picked up by DUers in this thread---that Sterling was convicted merely on leaking Operation Merlin.

I think the source, rather than DUers, are to blame.

[Luminous Animal]

217. No, it is clear that people are discussing the Espionage Act charges. The focus of Wheeler's article

If you'd like DUers to discuss the other charges, I suggest write your own article and feature it in your own OP.

[msanthrope]

219. Thank you for admitting that Wheeler is selectively discussing the charges. And I think that proves

exactly what I am saying about Wheeler being a sloppy journalist. Who gives their readership 7/9ths of the story?

That sort of thing plays well at FDL, where the incurious abound. Not so much, here.

[bvar22]

228. Quoting inaccurately and making false statements in order to further her agenda?

I'm shocked!

[WillyT]

239. LOL !!!

[Aerows]

206. Randome is a master of

throwing out tidbits to generate doubt. It doesn't have to be anywhere near the truth, and when called on it, either says "Oh, well, that's just my opinion" or doesn't respond at all. Any single thread that seeks to hold the CIA, the NSA or any public official responsible for torture, abuse of office, and violations of the Constitution, or the prosecution of whistle blowers, Randome and a couple of others will immediately flock to it to generate doubt.

Speculation that they are paid off, crazy, vindictive, and have an axe to grind are the typical fare. It's irrelevant whether such speculation is true or not, if it generates just enough doubt that "Oh, hey, it *could* be that way" that's all that's necessary.

No one could ever blow the whistle on torture, over reach by spy agencies out of concern for the Constitution, civil liberties, and simply because they have a conscience that is offended by torture - no, no, no. Because ... there was no torture, we knew this anyway, they were probably paid off, etc.

[randome]

211. I am a 'master' at nothing other than my ability to look at all the fine print.

If I posit a doubt, it's because something is unclear to me and anyone is free to disabuse me (not abuse me) at their leisure.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

215. There is a difference

between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. It's a neat tactic. It works sometimes, too.

[bvar22]

230. Their goal is not to convince anyone of anything.

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

[Aerows]

234. Just thought I'd point it out

for those who haven't been around to see it play out over several years. I phrased it the way that I did for exactly that reason.

Honestly, though, it has gotten so obvious that it mystifies me that *they* even believe in their mission anymore. They use a handful of the same recycled talking points over, and over and over again.

When someone can't even bear to criticize people who took part in torture and for intents and purposes sounds horrified that anyone might want to criticize such shining examples of the US, it transitions from being mere support of said agencies and turns into just being plain icky.

And I do mean, plain icky like I need to take a shower after reading some comments icky because the dis-ingenuousness makes my skin crawl. It's not even having a conversation, it's like talking to a robot.

[WillyT]

240. Gotta Agree...

[Aerows]

153. Let me see if I can figure out what you are saying here.

You have consistently been the champion of the idea that if Edward Snowden knew something, he should have taken it to Congress.

Sterling went to Congress and Congress blew him off (no surprises there).

I think everybody that doesn't march in lockstep protecting war criminals, the CIA and doesn't assist in covering up horrible and ILLEGAL things that have been done in our name is pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't with you.

I've yet to see you ever condemn torturers, because obviously, the CIA did it. And before you leap into "we didn't commit torture" mode, you had better explain to me how rectal feeding is justifiable and not illegal and not torture.

Since I already know you can't say that nor justify it, you just plain don't have a credible argument, Randome in all of your relentless defense of CIA agents that committed crimes. You don't have a credible argument, either, other than venomous condemnation that this information became known to the public.

But hey, go ahead, dear, leap into "we didn't commit torture" "no crimes were committed" and "it's nothing we didn't know before" mode. Make sure you stay in protection mode, too, because those sweet little darlings at the CIA can do no wrong as long as they keep atrocities committed in our name hidden from the American people.

[randome]

157. Is it difficult to admit it's possible that Congress blew him off because there was nothing illegal?

How can you possibly tell the difference between a disgruntled ex-employee and a whistleblower when both claim they are in the right?

Now that we know all about Operation Merlin and it's possible success/failure, we can...we can...what, exactly? What public service was done by revealing this information?

Sometimes a disgruntled ex-employee is nothing but what he/she appears to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

161. LOL

You avoided the point of my post, specifically that you will defend every single person in the CIA that tortured, lied to Congress and the NSA hoodlums, too.

As long as those sweet, gentle darlings in the CIA and NSA keep their mouths shut about atrocities committed, it's all good with you. The CIA didn't commit torture, right? The NSA didn't lie to Congress, right?

It's more important to maintain the status quo of committing crimes and covering them up, than prosecuting or preventing such things to happen, isn't it?

[randome]

164. I have never defended torture.

I do understand why the Administration doesn't want to prosecute members of the previous administration. It sets a precedent that leads to fear of reprisals by current agents.

As for the NSA lying, that's the old Clapper controversy, and that's something else I can understand without being in favor of. And since Congress does not consider it to be lying, is it truly lying?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

202. Anyone that ardently defends

against the American people's right to know that people were tortured in our name, argues fervently against whistle blowers, tirelessly attempts to dismiss the very real service that these whistle blowers did for the American people at great cost to themselves - not only defends torture, they support it.

Why, you say? Because folks like you don't want anyone to discuss war crimes, illegal activities committed by the NSA and the CIA, you STILL are sitting here defending the decision not to prosecute. So yes, you defend and support torture. It's just like giving Wall Street a pass and not prosecuting anyone - it guarantees that it will happen again.

I don't want torture to become something we as Americans become desensitized to. I have NEVER heard you EVER condemn the specific agencies involved, and you are still defending criminal behavior.

If you defend it, you support it. That's the way it is, Randome. If I willfully hide evidence of a murder, I'm guilty as an accessory, and yes, I supported that murder. It the same exact thing here. That's why your arguments aren't credible in regards to this issue, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

[randome]

204. But we DO know that people were tortured in our name. Much to our shame.

I can't argue with your point that my understanding of why Obama (and Congress) are not going to prosecute translates into support and/or defense but I don't see it that way.

The fact that this isn't an issue for the majority of Americans implies the same point of view.

We would be a better nation if we were consistently against torture, including the actions of Israel, and genital mutilations and beheadings and on and on. But do we all 'support' those horrible things by not doing much to stop them? I don't know. That's a valid point of view, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

214. You are doing it again.

The fact that this isn't an issue for the majority of Americans implies the same point of view.

You are speaking for the majority of Americans like you know what the majority of Americans think, and you assert it this way because that is what you WANT the majority of Americans to think.

You have repeatedly stated you aren't for prosecuting war crimes. You have repeatedly defended those who committed war crimes. So *you* might not have an issue with it, but apparently a hell of a lot of Americans do. Some have jeopardized their lives, their freedom, and summarily killed their own careers to make it known. Yet you smear ever single one of them non-stop.

You lionize the CIA, the NSA and every public official involved in both the torture, the coverup of torture, spying on American citizens, et. al., and use little tricks like the one above asserting that "the majority of Americans" think like you.

You know what that's called? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In fact, I'd argue that it's an incorrect sentiment anyway, because the calls for prosecution are growing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/12/09/to-deter-u-s-from-torturing-again-those-involved-should-be-prosecuted/

I can link to credible sources all day that say the opposite of what you are trying to push because *you* don't want anyone to be prosecuted. You've said as much repeatedly, and even here in this thread. Your arguments lack credibility on these subjects because of this.

[randome]

218. Virtually no one is talking about torture today.

So I have made the deduction that the majority of Americans don't really care.

Notice I said 'virtually'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

225. Did you see the date on those 2

articles I linked? The call for prosecution was last month.

It's a stretch to say "virtually no one is talking about torture".

You aren't the majority of Americans, so you can't assert with any authority what the majority think. Even if the majority don't care it is still a matter of law.

[WillyT]

242. Nobody Wants To Talk About Their Pedophile Uncle Either... Doesn't Mean They Shouldn't Be In Jail...

[msanthrope]

12. I am loving the post hoc defense of Judith Miller and Scooter Libby, myself. nt

[JonLP24]

15. My problem with Judith Miller involves making shit up for front page stories

as far as refusing to disclose a source, I don't have a problem with that as a general journalism principle.

I could argue a post hoc defense of John Ashcroft & other Bush administration officials (they are the ones that started this ball rolling)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday by a former FBI translator because the information needed to prove the case was classified and protected by what is known as the "state secrets privilege."

<snip>

In defending the invocation of the state secrets privilege, Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote in a declaration to the court: "Based on my personal consideration of the matter, I have concluded that further disclosure of the information underlying in this case, including the nature of the duties of the plaintiff or the other contract translators at issue in this case reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States."

Edmonds' lawyer, Mark Zaid, said in a statement that the government has gone too far.

"The decision today represents another example of the Executive Branch's abusive nature of using secrecy as a weapon against whistleblowers," Zaid's statement said.

www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/06/fbi.translator/

[msanthrope]

16. I was disgusted when James Risen made shit up about Wen Ho Lee. Why else do you

think Lee got the settlement he did? He's worse than Miller, given the jail time Lee suffered.

Like I've noted before...posters here are defending a CIA case officer who outed his own agent in the field....to sell a book. Marcy Wheeler doesn't talk about that charge, because it's indefensible.

Have you got a defense for it?

[JonLP24]

22. My position is more about "state secrets" being used to cover things up

and the lack of evidence & theory he was convicted. Jury, I get it. Which is why I pointed out the early history of the Espionage Act -- why it was passed, why it was used, & the troubling first amendment precedents it set & appears to continue to set.

[msanthrope]

24. What was covered up here? Every trial document is available online. Merlin wasn't an

illegal operation.

And I've noticed something very strange...the idea that circumstantial evidence is somehow not "real" evidence is a mistake of law and fact. A jury can absolutely reach a BRD verdict on circumstantial evidence alone. Thus, I've had some clients who thought they were so clever in concealing direct evidence find themselves in prison.

[JonLP24]

33. They absolutely can

they have also absolutely reached a verdict on people who were 100% innocent as well. A lot of the theory, which they argued is full of assumptions and maybe the specific crime is real but a lot of the theory is bullshit. Even if they have a lot of hard evidence they still use a story and they are allowed to tell a story, but it doesn't mean the assumptions aren't wrong though.

The government’s efforts to identify Risen’s source was unusually aggressive by any measure, lasting more than six years. It stems from what was deemed to be damaging disclosures in Risen’s 2006 book “State of War,” which included a chapter about a CIA program called “Operation Merlin.” Risen described it as a botched attempt under the Clinton administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program by feeding the Iranians deliberately flawed design blueprints for key nuclear components. But according to Risen’s book, the Iranians uncovered the scheme and the effort ended up accelerating Iran’s nuclear program.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41787944/ns/us_news-security/#.VMmOTckXEtQ

Again, if this was foolish and the CIA has been known to make foolish mistakes such as their recent plan to arm Syrian rebels it certainly merits concern so I don't care if what he reveals is legal or illegal -- I don't think the government does either. They would have charged him anyways.

[msanthrope]

38. The emails, phone calls, and meetings between the two were fabricated?

Look...I notice you are doing what Marcy Wheeler tried to do...you are studiously ignoring the charges stemming from outing Human Asset #1.

What say you to those charges?

[JonLP24]

41. No

Every article mentions that was the only evidence there was. The rest hinged on a theory and even if a read every word typed by the court stenographer, it still doesn't change how I feel about the "state secrets" & "espionage act of 1917".

[msanthrope]

44. Um, no...that's not the only evidence. What say you as to the evidence presented with

regard to Sterling outing Human Asset #1?

[JonLP24]

45. I don't know, was it his name?

I find it funny he was prevented from moving forward with a discrimination lawsuit because it require disclosing classified information to prove his discrimination but convicting him is another story.

[msanthrope]

55. Well...there was his motive. As prosecutors pointed out, once Merlin was

leaked, Sterling's lawsuit and his book deal could go forward.

As for the agent....you do realize that Sterling burned his own asset? One who was still in the field and subject to kill or capture? Plame was on American soil, and at least had some protection.

[riderinthestorm]

80. What's the name of Human Asset #1?

Seeing as you are asserting Sterling outed his own agent just like Plame, that name should be right out there.

What's his name?

[msanthrope]

95. Have you stopped to consider that Human Asset #1 is an actual person?

With a life, maybe a spouse and family?

Valerie Plame's life changed forever when she was outed. So why would you want the same for another person?

Or is this just a game to you?

I wouldn't tell you if I knew it....what possible reason would you need to know it?

Sterling screwed over his own asset. None of his defenders likes to talk about that.

[riderinthestorm]

108. Nope. You're claiming this is just like Judith Miller and Valerie Plame

And that Jeffrey Steeling outed his own agent.

Back it up otherwise it's simply a lie on your part.

[msanthrope]

112. Um....I don't have to back it up...it's the charge on the indictment he was

convicted of.

First...read the indictment.

Second....realize that Marcy Wheeler is only talking about some of the charges Sterling was convicted of. She's conveniently left out the ones she couldn't defend.

You do realize he was convicted of 9 charges....not just the 7 Marcy wrote about?

[riderinthestorm]

141. Yes I know. I'm focusing on your persistent charge that Sterling outed an agent

"Unauthorized disclosure of information" is very broad and certainly isn't zeroed in on outing an agent.

So noted that you can't provide the name of this alleged agent ("just like" Valerie Plame and Judith Miller redux).

[msanthrope]

177. First and foremost....I've already given the indictment link. I can't make you

read it.

If you choose to ignore the other two charges Wheeler did, then I can't force you to consider them. '

Of course I can't provide the name of Human Asset #1....and thank Jeebus I can't. Why would you wish what Plame went through on anyone?

[riderinthestorm]

186. I've read it. It does not say Sterling gave Risen the guy's name.

And I'm not wishing Plames fate on anyone. YOU apparently believe that the agent suffered some harm when by all accounts there was zero harm done.

It alleges Sterling gave "information" on Human Asset #1. What does that even mean? Name, rank, serial number? "Russian scientist" isn't even specific enough imo for anyone to guess who he was since there's literally thousands of Russian weapons experts out there. Obviously this many years later, we STILL don't know who this person is.

So unless Risen was in the room when the deal went through in Iran there's no details that point to Sterling outing an agent.

[WillyT]

243. And So Is Every Person Who Believed In The American Myths We Were Told As Children...

From Every Person Who Has Starved To Death Trying To Get Warm Over An Open Heating Grate... To Every Person That Signed Up To Fight Our Wars Only To Get Screwed And Then Forgotten

I would make the case that most people in positions of power went to school... went to COLLEGE.

The positions they hold require such.

So either they went to Jerry Falwell's College, Stanford, or Bumb-Fuck State... or they did NOT... and have found their advanced paychecks enhanced through legalized bribery.

[bigtree]

83. by that standard of yours

...we can also glean a motive by the CIA to single Sterling out as the source of the leak, neglecting to investigate other more likely sources working for the Senate Select Committee who were cited in court testimony as Risen contacts even BEFORE Sterling brought them his information.

Pointing to a book that wasn't even published is weak evidence of motive. Recognizing the CIA stake in suppressing Sterling's racial discrimination lawsuit - complete with a rejection of that lawsuit by the court because of concern plead by the CIA of 'state secrets' they said would be revealed if the case went forward - this prosecution of Sterling looks like a CIA vendetta.

[msanthrope]

102. Again...you make the mistake Wheeler did. You focus on the 'leak' but not on the

charges that will get him a longer sentence....

The revealing of his own agent in the field. What say you to that specific charge....because that info could only have come from Sterling.

[bigtree]

123. the Russian engineer, Merlin?

...hardly something our courts would see as the primary offense.

[msanthrope]

128. You don't seem to understand that the Wheeler article is only talking about 7 of the 9

charges he was convicted of.

[bigtree]

133. show me the charge you're referring to

[msanthrope]

137. I've already put the link to the indictment in the thread. I can't MAKE

you read it. I can't make you google it.

But, I will suggest something to you I learned about Marcy Wheeler long ago.....always check her out. I think it very sloppy journalism on her part that she did not inform her readership that there were 9 convictions....not 7.

[bigtree]

139. no, not a document dump

...show me the conviction for outing an agent.

[msanthrope]

185. Okay--I can't physically make you read the charges in the indictment. That's true.

And if you wish.....you can avoid the google....and not look up the fact that Sterling was convicted on 9 counts. Seriously....it was in the papers.....9 counts.

And if you really want, you can pretend he was only convicted on the 7 counts Wheeler wrote about. '

But other DUers can work the google...

[WillyT]

244. Have You Ever Served On A Jury ???

I have... it was a murder trial... gang related...

You know how long it took the "Jury to convict"...

About 10 minutes.

They were all looking at their phones, and wanting to get back to work.

I asked... since the judge gave us intsructions for 5 different levels of criminality (murder)...

I asked the jury... what circumstances would have to be different to go from Murder 1 to Murder 2...

Not a one of them could answer.

So then they asked me what I wanted... so they could get back to work.

[msanthrope]

259. Willy...I'm an attorney. I pick juries. Federal grand juries are not

as dull-witted as you seem to want to indicate.

[Octafish]

27. You never mention that article's co-author, NYT reporter Jeff Gerth, msanthrope. Why?

Jeff Gerth, meet Judith Miller

Eric Boehlert
Media Matters, Column, May 30, 2007T

Isn't former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth writing the definitive book about Hillary Clinton sort of like Judith Miller deciding to write the definitive book about Iraq's WMDs? It just doesn't add up.

After all, both Gerth and Miller, former star reporters, are well known for the facts they got wrong, more so than the stories they got right. While Miller limited most of her damage to a single topic, Iraq, Gerth, by contrast, became a Zelig-like figure at the newspaper during the 1990s, appearing at every crossroads where The New York Times lost its newsroom composure, and uncorked dark, convoluted tales featuring the conniving Clintons at the heart of a would-be criminal enterprise.

Indeed, Gerth was at the center of a rather unfortunate period in the Times' history. It was pre-public editor, pre-bloggers, and pre-Media Matters for America. And it was a time when the paper's leadership seemed more concerned with protecting high-profile scandal stories -- propping them up, really -- than with being accurate and honest with its readers.

But that shoddy approach to journalism caught up with the Times in recent years, and the paper has suffered a series of credibility setbacks, particularly with its prewar reporting. If you don't think Gerth's corner-cutting contributed to the paper's troubles -- if you think ambitious insiders at the Times didn't take notice of Gerth's star run when he was lauded and rewarded for writing accusatory stories that couldn't withstand close scrutiny and often didn't even make sense -- then I don't think you understand how the Beltway media's star system works.

Meaning Judith Miller simply picked up where Jeff Gerth left off.

CONTINJUED...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/05/30/jeff-gerth-meet-judith-miller/138965

[msanthrope]

34. Because Jeffy wasn't part of the legal cases in the 4th involving either Miller or Risen?

Jeebus Ocata......way to Striesand Effect that tidbit on James Risen.

If he was a coconspirator with Jeff Gerth, then he's an even slimier fuck than previously imagined.

Why would you believe ANYTHING Risen wrote after learning of that connection?

[Octafish]

47. Because it may be Gerth who deserves your wrath, scorn, whatever for Wen Ho Lee, not Risen.

So, that's why I brought Gerth up.

Chinese Espionage Was a Reagan-Bush Scandal

By Robert Parry
February 16, 2001

EXCERPT...

Enter Wen Ho Lee

Wen Ho Lee first came to the FBI’s attention in 1982 when he called another scientist who was under investigation for espionage, according to the Times chronology. But Lee's contacts with China -- along with trips there by other U.S. nuclear scientists -- increased in the mid-1980s as relations warmed between Washington and Beijing.

In March 1985, Lee was seen talking with Chinese scientists during a scientific conference in Hilton Head, S.C. The next year, with approval of Los Alamos, Lee and another scientist attended a conference in Beijing. In 1988, Wen Ho Lee attended another conference in Beijing.

“On Sept. 25, 1992, a nuclear blast shook China’s western desert,” the Times wrote. “From spies and electronic surveillance, American intelligence officials determined that the test was a breakthrough in China’s long quest to match American technology for smaller, more sophisticated hydrogen bombs.”

In September 1992, George H.W. Bush was still president. By that point, the barn door had been left open for years and the horses apparently were long gone.

In the early years of the Clinton administration, U.S. intelligence experts began to appreciate the potential magnitude of the Chinese espionage. They came to believe that the Chinese nuclear breakthrough was most likely achieved through purloined U.S. secrets.

“It’s like they were driving a Model T and went around the corner and suddenly had a Corvette,” said Robert M. Hanson, a Los Alamos intelligence analyst, in early 1995, the Times reported.

CONTINUED...

https://consortiumnews.com/2001/021601b.html

I blame the NYT editors and not the reporters. Gerth, not Risen, is the go-to guy as the NYT seems intent on protecting the ones who don't deserve protection and busting those who are little people.

[msanthrope]

49. Apologia for Mr. Risen, who was a Whitewater RW writer in his own right

at the LATimes?

Come on Octa......anyone who read the shit Risen wrote about Whitewater, and read the fluffing he gave Bob Dole, doesn't believe that Gerth lead him down the garden path.

James Risen is a RW hack...and has always been.

[WillyT]

51. Ah... Thanks For The Insight...

[Octafish]

52. Satire is getting harder to separate from a JAG rerun.

Ten hut. At ease, court. Now for a word from our sponsor. Take your seats. Guilty? We'll return after these messages. You can't handle the truth. Guilty!



The End.

[sabrina 1]

106. Well, I'm really glad you have respect for the rule of law. How do you feel about the Government

no, the POTUS, having the power to execute American citizens without charges filed in a court of law, without a trial with a jury and judge and stuff?

I don't recall your position on Bush's 'law' claiming the US President has the powers of a Monarch.

So far, that we know of, two American citizens have been assassinated in violation of what you are, rightfully, defending here.

[randome]

110. Do police violate someone's rights when they shoot an armed suspect?

(Well, actually, sometimes they do but that's another topic, we're talking about terrorists, right?)

I agree it's a tricky terrain when talking about American citizens who have taken up arms against their own country but...it's a tricky terrain. We have laws and regulations for that, too, which puts us on a slightly better pedestal than any 'monarch'.

Do you have a better proposal for dealing with American citizens in other countries working with terrorists in regions that are virtually inaccessible by other means?

If so, share it with us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

135. Well, I have never seen any evidence that those Americans were guilty of anything. A teenager going

to a party doesn't strike me as worthy of the DP, no matter what country he is partying in.

Of course there is a better solution. You mentioned it in the post I first responded to.

Secret 'kill lists' is not part of our laws. Thankfully.

Sad, I thought for a minute you would be consistent regarding the application of the Rule of Law. I still oppose vehemently, Bush's claims, once strenuously opposed at least on the Left, and in fact by more rational people on the Right, that the President has a right to slap the label 'terrorist' on someone and that's all we need to know before the DP is administered, skipping all that in between stuff, like Habeus Corpus'. I remember eloquent speeches from some of our Dems in Congress regarding this frightening destruction of our judicial system..

My 'solution' really isn't mine, it comes people far wiser and way more intelligent, it is that the Rule of Law should be applied to all human beings, due process is one of the founding principles that differentiates a civilized society from a primitive society.

You can find these principles laid out in the Geneva Conventions and in our own Constitution.

Where the notion that the President alone can administer the DP to anyone he decides is a 'terrorist', without charges, without due process, is written down, I have no idea.

Perhaps in the Document that apparently was a replacement for the US Constitution? The Patriot Act?

I wonder how all this giving away of 'our Freedoms' has made us any safer. According to both Feinstein and Rogers (Intel Committees) we are in MORE danger today than ever before.

For those of us who are not willing to allow the 'terrorists to take away our freedoms' this is no surprise.

Thanks for your response.

[JonLP24]

9. Espionage Act

Censorship
Revolt of Unemployed The act was, on the whole, inoffensive -- even to radicals -- and most of it remains on the books today. What infuriated liberals and radicals, however, was the power of censorship it gave to the Postmaster General. The federal official could declare "unmailable" any material which, in his opinion, violated the act.

Wartime Raids and Mass Arrests
At the same time, the government stepped up its campaign against radicals. The nation was at war in Europe -- and a draft had been reintroduced for the first time since the Civil War. Military recruitment posters -- like James Montgomery Flagg's famous pointing Uncle Sam -- were striking a patriotic chord with the American public. On September 5, 1917, federal agents raided Industrial Workers of the World offices nationwide. On September 28, 166 people who were (or had been) active in the I.W.W. were accused of trying to "cause insubordination, disloyalty, and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces" -- in violation of the Espionage Act. One hundred and one defendants were found guilty, and received prison sentences ranging from ten days to twenty years.

More Anti-Radical Sentiment
The Espionage Act was evidently effective in prosecuting the I.W.W. and any others opposing conscription. In 1918, it was used to send labor leader and former presidential candidate Eugene Debs to jail for a decade, because of a speech he delivered. Yet in some quarters, the law was still deemed insufficient to deal with the problem of radicalism, and particularly with the influence of the I.W.W. in the Northwest.

Silencing Radical Voices
J. Edgar Hoover On January 16, 1918, the chairman of House Judiciary Committee introduced a bill which became known as the Sedition Act. This more wide-ranging law would establish penalties for speaking against the American government, constitution, flag, or uniform; interfering with wartime production; promoting the cause of America's enemies; inciting refusal of military duty; obstructing military recruitment, and more. It also criminalized advocating or suggesting any of these activities, so that a radical public speaker like Emma Goldman became a target. According to Alice Wexler, the war provided an excuse "for the prosecution of labor activists, dissidents, and radicals -- especially the anarchists, Wobblies, and left-wing socialists -- who had gained considerable strength during the previous decade."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/e_redscare.html

Police state indeed.

[Octafish]

10. Traitors walk free. Whistleblowers get prison.

Whistleblower who exposed CIA nuclear sabotage operation convicted under Espionage Act

By Thomas Gaist
World Socialist Web Site, 28 January 2015

EXCERPT...

The case represents yet another victory for the Obama administration’s assault on investigative journalism, including the secret wiretapping of the Associated Press to identify “leakers” and the prosecution of Chelsea (Bradley) Manning for providing information to WikiLeaks. The administration has prosecuted more cases under the Espionage Act than all previous presidential administrations combined.

The Obama administration’s surveillance and prosecution of journalists has produced a “chilling effect,” with sources in the government and corporate bureaucracies suddenly going silent, according to leading journalists. As Risen noted in an interview with the Times last August, President Obama is “the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”

The Obama administration is “going to bring these cases continuously to demonstrate that type of conduct by a government employee or a government contractor is going to be prosecuted,” a prominent New York lawyer told the Washington Post, referring to Sterling’s conviction.

Attorney General Eric Holder responded by declaring that Sterling’s conviction was the “just and appropriate outcome” of the trial. Sterling’s communications with Risen “placed lives at risk” and represented “an egregious breach of the public trust,” Holder said.
In essence, Sterling has been convicted for allegedly leaking information about illegal CIA covert operations, that is, for helping expose a criminal conspiracy orchestrated at the highest levels of government.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/28/ster-j28.html

BTW: How's Don Siegelman doing?

[JonLP24]

19. I agree 100%

Described by the American Civil Liberties Union as the “most gagged person in the history of the United States of America,” Edmonds studied criminal justice, psychology and public policy at George Washington and George Mason universities. Two weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, her fluency in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani earned her an FBI contract at the Washington DC field office. She was tasked with translating highly classified intelligence from operations against terrorism suspects in and outside the U.S..

In the course of her work, Edmonds became privy to evidence that U.S. military and intelligence agencies were collaborating with Islamist militants affiliated with al-Qaeda, the very forces blamed for the 9/11 attacks – and that officials in the FBI were covering up the evidence. When Edmonds complained to her superiors, her family was threatened by one of the subjects of her complaint, and she was fired. Her accusations of espionage against her FBI colleagues were eventually investigated by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, which did not give details about the allegations as they remained classified.

Although no final conclusions about the espionage allegations were reached, the Justice Department concluded that many of Edmonds’ accusations “were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.”

When she attempted to go public with her story in 2002, and again in 2004, the U.S. government silenced Edmonds by invoking a legal precedent known as “state secrets privilege” – a near limitless power to quash a lawsuit based solely on the government’s claim that evidence or testimony could divulge information that might undermine “national security.” Under this doctrine, the government sought to retroactively classify basic information concerning Edmonds’s case already in the public record, including, according to the New York Times, “what languages Ms. Edmonds translated, what types of cases she handled, and what employees she worked with, officials said. Even routine and widely disseminated information — like where she worked — is now classified.”

https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/

Anyways, if it is fashionable to laugh at her claims it still doesn't explain why US has maintained a partnership with Saudi Arabia whose House of Saud descendants come from the man that made that pact "You are the settlement's chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will perform jihad (Struggle to spread Islam) against the unbelievers. In return you will be imam, leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in religious matters." with Al-Wahhab and this global terrorist organization happens to practice the same religious doctrine as the original state sponsored Wahhabism.

Either the US, CIA, FBI, etc are incredibly poorly uninformed or there is something more as to why of all things, they wouldn't use the same rhetoric as they do against Russia.

This was blocked the first time by our same government.

Supreme Court lets victims' 9/11 suit vs. Saudi Arabia proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead Monday to a lawsuit by victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the government of Saudi Arabia, alleging it indirectly financed al-Qaeda in the years before the hijackings.

The justices declined to hear an appeal by the Saudi government of a lower-court ruling that the lawsuit could go forward. The high court also declined to hear a separate appeal by 9/11 victims of a lower-court decision preventing them from suing dozens of banks and individuals that allegedly provided financial assistance to the hijackers.

"From our perspective, we are looking forward to having the opportunity to finally conduct an inquiry into the financing of the Sept. 11 attacks," said Sean Carter, a partner at the Center City law firm Cozen O'Connor, one of the firms involved in the litigation against the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia has long denied responsibility for the attacks and pointed to a finding by the 9/11 Commission that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government "as an institution" had involvement.

But the issue has refused to go away.

Cozen, which has taken the lead in the litigation, sued the kingdom in 2003 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, alleging that Saudi-funded Islamist charities had secretly provided money and logistical support to al-Qaeda for more than a decade.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-07-02/business/51005807_1_saudi-arabia-saudi-government-cozen-o-connor

It is interesting Cozen says that in 2003 since charity fronts is one way ISIS receives funding.

[Adrahil]

56. How was this "whistleblowing?"

Am I missing something?

I certainly hope the CIA is trying to sabotage Iranian nuclear ambitions. That's their job.

[randome]

65. No, it's Congress' job. No. Wait. It's Sterling's job. No, no, still not right. Risen's?

Damn, I had this!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

67. Seeing how Sterling went to Congress to express his concerns...

...maybe someone there leaked what he told them.

[bigtree]

72. more likely someone there was the source

...especially since folks in the Senate knew of the program long before Sterling went to them. Moreover, Risen had already interviewed several individuals with knowledge of the matter working with Congress before Sterling offered his own information to the Senate Select Committee.

"Two former staffers from the SSIC who met with Sterling in March 2003, when he brought what they and other prosecution witnesses have described as a whistleblowing complaint about the Merlin scheme, did testify as prosecution witnesses at Sterling’s trial. Under questioning, they provided testimony helpful to Sterling that showed that Risen, indeed, apparently had sources on the committee – a committee that was already familiar with Operation Merlin even before Sterling came to them with his concerns."

http://original.antiwar.com/john_hanrahan/2015/01/23/sterling-prosecution-long-on-rhetoric-short-on-evidence/

[Octafish]

75. Without Risen on the stand, the Defense never had a chance.

So, keeping Risen off the stand was a victory for those who (originally) wanted him on it.

More than shutting up a pesky whistleblower, the Secret Government shuts down investigative journalism.

Catch-22 for Ever.

[bigtree]

78. the government fought to keep him off the stand to limit his testimony about lies and deceptions

...involving the lead-up to the Iraq invasion and other bungling attempts to frame the Iranians with items they, themselves would provide them relating to nuclear weapon production.

[randome]

82. As I understand it, the government fought to keep Risen's testimony out of the transcript.

Which makes sense so that any secrets he spilled on behalf of the defense would not be published.

Sterling could have walked away on Day One if he had called Risen to testify and Risen said Sterling was not his source, which would have been part of a criminal investigation, not a 'freedom of the press' matter. So obviously Sterling was the source.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

85. that's just speculation

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

...you can argue all you want that the defense demanding Risen take the stand would have swayed the jury in Sterling's favor, but there was no guarantee that Risen would have revealed ANY source on the stand. Speculating how the jury would have regarded that potential stonewall by Risen and concluding that it would exonerate Sterling is hogwash.

It's more interesting how the government sought to limit Risen's testimony at first, then pleaded with the judge to exclude him entirely from testifying. Even more interesting is the fact that NONE of the prosecution's arguments come anywhere close to the circumstantial reasoning you're using to find him guilty for not insisting that Risen take the stand. It's absurd logic, at best - diverting disinformation, at the worst.

[randome]

107. Risen would have been jailed if he refused to testify in a criminal matter.

Not revealing his sources to the prosecution falls under freedom of the press. But if Sterling's defense called Risen as a witness and he refused to testify, Risen would have been jailed.

And I believe the government moved to keep Risen's testimony out of the transcript, which makes sense since if he revealed national security secrets, those would then be publicly available. They did not try to prevent him from testifying.

At least that's what I understand of the issues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

130. still just speculation on your part

...as to how the jury would have received that testimony or appearance.

They absolutely did try and prevent him from testifying.

from Josh Gerstein:

In a motion filed Monday, one day before jury selection is slated to get underway in the case of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, prosecutors are asking U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema to declare Risen "unavailable" and his absence essentially off limits for argument in front of the jury.

"Mr. Risen has indicated under oath, without hesitation or equivocation, that he will not answer questions that go to the heart of the case. As such, he is unavailable for purposes of the trial and neither party should be permitted to call him as a witness," prosecutors wrote in the motion (posted here)

[randome]

136. Okay, so they did. But didn't the judge then rule that only Risen's transcript would be redacted?

I'm guessing that the only reason the government wanted to exclude Risen was so that he wouldn't mention national security secrets in public but I'm open to interpretation on that. The judge's subsequent ruling to keep the transcript free of national security secrets was a good call, IMO.

(And if I'm recalling that sequence of events correctly.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

84. The truth would negatively impact the Government's case against Sterling, so...

...send a good man to prison for 80 years. Which is the point of Justice by Secret Government: It's better than one innocent man go to jail for the rest of his life than for even a single traitor from the lot who lied America into war spend a day before a Grand Jury.

The Merlin operation, going from what little I know, sounds like an express attempt to:

1.) frame Iran as nuclear warmongers and
2.) act to spread nuclear weapons in order to give the MIC another excuse for being.

Remember A.Q. Khan in Pakistan got aided by Cheney for Poppy and his Secret Team in the 1980s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1269925

Pakistan got the "Islamic Bomb" and our contractors and sub-contractors will continue to enjoy that gravy train till every last Aspen friend of Scooter is off probation.

[msanthrope]

134. The defense could have called Risen. There was no bar to that. The government's

position that the transcript should be out because Risen was available is correct. The government could not have kept Risen from testifying.

The defense didn't want Risen on the stand because the transcript was more controllable.

I think the judge made a good ruling on 5th amendment grounds.

You are misstating the legal issues here.

[bigtree]

142. it's still a strawman

...speculating that Risen's testimony or appearance would have been decisive to the jury in Sterling's favor.

You're the one 'misstating' the essence of the case, which never fell on the defense not demanding Risen take the stand. If there was a good reason for the prosecution which you can excuse away, there's certainly room to give the defense reason to decide against his appearance without using that as some proof of guilt. You're making a ridiculous stretch of logic and it's nothing more than deflection from the actual facts in this case.

[msanthrope]

171. No--it's not. Federal juries are generally smart enough to make inferences from testimony--and lack

of testimony.

You mistake the motion fight---the government did not object to Risen being called to the stand, at all. They wanted it. They objected to the transcript of the hearing being used.

And I don't think Risen's appearance in front of the jury would have been in Sterling's favor---you mistake me. THAT'S why his defense fought so hard to have Risen's transcript....and not Risen's live testimony.

You know....you seem to think that Risen would have been allowed to testify to the "truth" of the merits of Operation Merlin. I can assure you--the federal judge in question, not to mention the prosecutor would never have allowed such tangential shit to cloud the courtroom....

There was no danger to the government having Risen testify. None.

[riderinthestorm]

146. Risen already said he wasn't going to testify for anyone

But you knew that.

[msanthrope]

168. Nonsense--the 4th circuit's denial of appeal CLEARLY stated that he was compelled to testify. The

judge would have immediately jailed him had he refused to testify....particularly for the defense.

That Holder held off did not mean the defense had to.

[riderinthestorm]

176. Risen was prepared to go to jail.

He'd spoken publicly about that for years. If they made him get on that stand he was taking the 5th and going to jail.

Risen wasn't going to testify for anyone.

In fact, I believe the fact that Risen didn't testify means he knows Sterling didn't do it and is protecting his other sources.

The natural seque to "did Mr Sterling give you this classified info?" Is "if not him, then who?"

"Sorry ma'am I'm taking the 5th on that."

James Risen was going to be up shit creek without a paddle no matter how he answered.

It's such bullshit.

[msanthrope]

179. He should have gone to jail, just like Miller if he was going to let Sterling go to prison falsely.

Are you suggesting Risen let an innocent man face an 80 year sentence?

[riderinthestorm]

188. I am not James Risen. Why don't you ask him?

He's been pretty clear, he wasn't going to testify under any situation.

And he had no way of knowing Sterling would be convicted. The case is entirely circumstantial and is an obvious witch hunt.

Maybe he will testify during the appeal since it went so badly for Sterling.

As an attorney, surely you know there is such a thing as an appeal?

[msanthrope]

191. Testify during the appeal? OMFG.

Okay.....I thank you for the laugh.

Like I said....you seem to be stating that Risen let an innocent man go to jail for a possible 80 year term rather than reveal his source.

If I were the criminal defense attorney on this case, and I had an innocent client.....I'd let Risen's ass rot in jail before I let my client face an 80 year term for something he didn't do.

[sabrina 1]

227. Risen was willing to go to jail. The Government apparently, especially after the show in France

regardiing the protection of even the most 'vile speech', preferred to not have to deal with the outcry that was ready and waiting if they jailed a journalist.

Doesn't look good to, otoh, 'stand up for freedom of speech' while on the other, like the Saudi hypocrite who, while paying tribute to the victims in France, was ordering the flogging of a blogger, jail a well known Journalist.

War Criminals still free, despite the actual real HARM they have done to this country and others, the lives they sacrificed and the increase in the threat to our national security (see Feinstein and Rogers) while Whistle Blowers and journalists are silenced.

Some day we will restore the rule of law in this country. We are going through a very dark period right now but so have other nations. It will last only as long as enablers support it. And even some of them are beginning to wonder if they are doing the right thing.

[msanthrope]

229. No--Risen was not willing to go to jail, which is why he appealed over and over. As to the rest,

you seem to have gone far astray.

[sabrina 1]

231. Of course he appealed it. Why was he even threatened with jail in a country that puts on such a

display of support for FREEDOMS!!!

Appealing it doesn't mean he wasn't willing to go to jail.

Thanks for your opinion, I prefer to take HIS word for it.

He refused to be an informer. THAT is why he appealed.

Lol, I guess you don't believe in a journalist who is threatened with jail by their government accessing the, weak though it is at the moment, judicial process available to him.

Tragically in today's America, where the rule of law has been totally abandoned, sadly with the full support of far too many Americans, Journalists and Whistle Blowers are under attack.

[WillyT]

246. Since When ???

Could you please site the law that makes us the world's policeman ???

Thanks in advance.

[Adrahil]

247. LOL.... Ok, Mr. Pollyanna....

Sure... World powers don't conduct espionage, to include covert action. :roll eyes:

[WillyT]

248. So... Say It Out Loud... Let The World Know... We Have Their Backs... We ARE The World's Police...

Let our people vote on that.

[Adrahil]

249. You don't have to be the World Police....

.... To act in your own interests. It is most definitely against our interests for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

I'd rather we conduct espionage and covert action that start yet another war.

[WillyT]

251. Why... The Rest Of The World Would Have Been Better Off If We Didn't Have One...

[bigtree]

250. in this case, the CIA was fabricating evidence of Iran's nuclear ambitions

...including planting fabricated evidence (nuclear blueprints) to justify Bush's push to war against Iran.

Of course, the CIA doesn't conduct false flag operations. :side eye:

[Adrahil]

253. I haven't seen that allegation with regard to this case...

...care to point me in the right direction?

And that's not being snarky. I have heard many details about this case, and would appreciate more from a source with as little axe to grind as possible.

[bigtree]

254. recap from above

from 'CIA on Trial in Virginia for Planting Nuke Evidence in Iran'

...another explanation of both Operation Merlin and of the defensiveness of the prosecution and its witnesses (in particular “Bob S.”) at the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling... This was an effort to plant nuke plans on Iran, part of the pattern described in Gareth Porter’s latest book.

Marcy Wheeler reminds me of related efforts to plant English-language nuke plans around the same period of time or not long after. There was the laptop of death, later reprised for another war marketing effort. There were nuke plans and parts buried in a backyard as well.

Why give Iran flawed plans for a key part of a nuclear weapon? Why fantasize about giving Iran the thing already built (which wouldn’t delay Iran’s non-existent program much). Because then you can point out that Iran has them. And you won’t even be lying, as with forged documents claiming Iraq is buying uranium or hired subcontractors pretending aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons. With Operation Merlin you can work some real dark magic: You can tell the truth about Iran having what you so desperately want Iran to appear to have

my summary:

Sterling was blowing the cover on a push to war with Iran which was being leveraged by this dangerous and dubious sting operation which actually provided Iran with a direction to a nuclear weapon. It was a cynical attempt which, by the very nature of it's bungling (not Sterling's revelation, but the sloppy and amateurish nature of the blueprints) ended up thwarting any effort to actually discover the extent of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Sterling was alerting Congress to a dangerously counterproductive attempt to provide Iran with nuclear blueprints for the dubious goal of slowing down a nuclear weapon's program which even the Clinton Administration didn't find evidence for. That conclusion that Iran was developing nukes was actually first introduced in any government report at that point as justification to get authority to carry out the blueprint plan. All of this took place in an atmosphere where Bush and others in Congress were looking for pretext to bomb or invade Iran over what the IAEA later determined was likely 'fabricated' evidence which they concluded did not indicate any nuclear weapons program at all in Iran.

What the government was actually engaged in at the time was an effort to make it appear that Iraq actually had a nuclear weapons program, even though a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program and actually halted their nuclear efforts as early as 2003. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency believed the evidence the U.S. was presenting was fabricated. Presenting the U.S. efforts against as some heroic race to stop an atomic bomb plays into the narrative which had been used to call for strikes or an invasion of Iran. The record, however, shows a muddled, contradictory, and bungled effort to discredit the Iranians, rather than some noble and unassailable mission.

Much like Daniel Ellsberg's opposition to the Vietnam war and his revelations of false flag event involving the Gulf of Tonkin, Sterling's revelations to Congress provided evidence of similar deceptions and U.S. government chicanery which they were using to portray and frame Iran as a nuclear aggressor.


Gareth Porter discusses this in his book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

interview: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talknationradio-20140212

[Adrahil]

255. I think that's a misreading of what happened....

.... From other sources, I think the idea was to sabotage Iran's efforts by giving deliberately flawed plans, not to plant false evidence. The evidence is pretty clear that Iran is/was pursuing a nuclear weapon due to the kind of enrichment activities they are pursuing (which exceeds what's necessary for a nuclear power plant).

[bigtree]

256. only if you take the government's prosecution at face value, which you apparently do

...you've every right to that judgment of yours to accept that the U.S. was working to thwart a nuclear program that they later admitted didn't exist, but you should know that there is another narrative which goes behind and beyond reading the indictment.

let me repeat and highlight this for you:

...a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program and actually halted their nuclear efforts as early as 2003. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency believed the evidence the U.S. was presenting was fabricated. Presenting the U.S. efforts against as some heroic race to stop an atomic bomb plays into the narrative which had been used to call for strikes or an invasion of Iran. The record, however, shows a muddled, contradictory, and bungled effort to discredit the Iranians, rather than some noble and unassailable mission.

[Adrahil]

257. I'll look into it some more.... But the story doesn't make much sense to me. n/t

[bigtree]

258. Risen's book outlines a pattern of deception by the U.S. intelligence agencies

...leading to justifications for war - the Niger documents warning of yellow-cake uranium in Iraq were remarkably similar to the documents the U.S. alleged they had obtained from Iran, and more.

It's only going to 'make sense' if you step away from what you've gleaned from the CIA and the government prosecution and adopt a necessarily more cynical view of their efforts and intentions. There's reams of writing along these lines; I've presented a few links. It doesn't hurt to take those in consideration; especially in light of the subject Risen was promoting in his book that the CIA has worked so hard to discredit and suppress.

more on that here:

James Risen Interview, Wednesday, 15 October 2014, with Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26831-james-risen-prepared-to-pay-any-price-to-report-on-war-on-terror-amid-crackdown-on-whistleblowers

[Maedhros]

29. The big question is: why is Obama doing this?

His Administration has (mis)used the Espionage Act more than all others combined - and not against "spies" who sold secrets to our enemies, but against whistle blowers trying to inform the citizenry of abuses by its own government.

[WillyT]

31. Because He Knows The American Electorate... And His Underwear Is Wet Too...

Plus... it makes certain people a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY.

[JonLP24]

35. It was misused from the get go

It was never about spies. Just some red scare fears which J. Edgar Hoover liberally used it to prosecute socialist anti-war protestors who were the intended targets from the get go.,

[randome]

37. 'Leaker' and 'whistleblower' are two different classifications.

Obama has prosecuted more leakers because there are more leakers in his administration. It isn't rocket science.

Or perhaps you think that anyone can be allowed to get away with anything if they simply call themselves a whistleblower?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

90. was Daniel Ellsberg a 'whistleblower' for leaking the Pentagon Papers?

...or a 'leaker' in the derogatory fashion you use to describe Jeffery Sterling?


from Silent Whistleblower:

Daniel Ellsberg, Ph.D. is the whistleblower best known for releasing the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. In 1959, Dr. Ellsberg was hired by the RAND Corporation as a consultant for the White House and the Defense Department specializing in problems of the command and control of nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans, and crisis decision-making. After leaving RAND briefly to serve at both the Pentagon and in Vietnam, Dr. Ellsberg returned to RAND where he contributed to the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret study of classified document regarding the conduct of the Vietnam War.

By 1969, Dr. Ellsberg had become disenfranchised with the war. During a War Resistance League conference at Haverford College that year, his resolve to do everything in his power to stop the war was solidified. Working with a fellow RAND employee and staff members for Edward Kennedy, Dr. Ellsberg began making secret copies of the Pentagon Papers with the intent to leak them to the public.

Throughout 1970, Dr. Ellsberg attempted to persuade several US Senators to expose the Johnson Administration’s blatant lies about the war on the Senate floor. Fear of jail kept the Senators from acting, prompting Dr. Ellsberg to make the document public on his own.

Beginning with scholars at the Institute for Policy Studies, Dr. Ellsberg eventually gave the papers to The New York Times under a pledge of confidentiality. Reporter Neil Sheenan broke that promise and, on June 13, 1971, published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page document.

President Nixon’s response was to attempt to silence both the Times and Ellsberg. While unsuccessful, this led to the formation of “the White House Plumbers” who eventually would be involved in the Watergate burglaries. Facing charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, Dr. Ellsberg surrendered to the United States District Attorney’s Office of the District of Massachusetts in Boston. In the trial that followed, evidence of gross misconduct on the part of the government led to a dismissal of all charges against Dr. Ellsberg on May 11, 1973.

If you don't accept him as a whistleblower, that would explain a lot about your view. If you agree that he was a whistleblower, what separates his actions from those of Jeffery Sterling's, in your opinion?

[randome]

93. No doubt Ellsberg was a whistleblower. His actions saved lives. Sterling's actions endangered lives.

Sterling outed an agent to Risen so he would have cover to sell a book. Quite a bit of difference between the two men.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

116. actually, the government's actions endangered lives

...and Sterling wasn't found guilty of 'outing and agent' to 'sell a book,' so that's just propaganda to discredit him.

from the article in the op:

"Sterling was accused — and ultimately convicted — of leaking two related things: First, information about the Merlin operation to deal flawed nuclear blueprints to Iran, as well as the involvement of a Russian engineer referred to as Merlin in the trial. In addition to that, the government charged Sterling separately for leaking a document (one which the FBI never found, in anyone’s possession): a letter Merlin included along with the nuclear blueprints he wrapped in a newspaper and left in the mailbox of Iran’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So the government convicted Sterling of leaking two things: information about the operation, and a letter that was used in the operation."

as to the dangerous and reckless government plot Sterling was revealing:

(There) was the testimony of former CIA official David Shedd, currently the acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who pointed to many dire potential results of the Risen book’s now-aging disclosures. He called the leak “a breach of security that potentially would affect similar operations,” and warned that such a leak “could require modification” of U.S. nuclear plans – apparently because the bogus plans had good stuff in them that, warts and all, provided tips about the U.S. program. Which only underscores the craziness: If there is good stuff in the flawed plans, why would you want to peddle them to Iran or any other country you consider an adversary?
http://original.antiwar.com/john_hanrahan/2015/01/23/sterling-prosecution-long-on-rhetoric-short-on-evidence/

What the government was actually engaged in at the time was an effort to make it appear that Iraq actually had a nuclear weapons program, even though a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program and actually halted their nuclear efforts as early as 2003. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency believed the evidence the U.S. was presenting was fabricated. Presenting the U.S. efforts against as some heroic race to stop an atomic bomb plays into the narrative which had been used to call for strikes or an invasion of Iran. The record, however, shows a muddled, contradictory, and bungled effort to discredit the Iranians, rather than some noble and unassailable mission.

from 'CIA on Trial in Virginia for Planting Nuke Evidence in Iran'

Here’s another explanation of both Operation Merlin and of the defensiveness of the prosecution and its witnesses (in particular “Bob S.”) at the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling which is thus far failing to prosecute Jeffrey Sterling. This was an effort to plant nuke plans on Iran, part of the pattern described in Gareth Porter’s latest book.

Marcy Wheeler reminds me of related efforts to plant English-language nuke plans around the same period of time or not long after. There was the laptop of death, later reprised for another war marketing effort. There were nuke plans and parts buried in a backyard as well.

Why give Iran flawed plans for a key part of a nuclear weapon? Why fantasize about giving Iran the thing already built (which wouldn’t delay Iran’s non-existent program much). Because then you can point out that Iran has them. And you won’t even be lying, as with forged documents claiming Iraq is buying uranium or hired subcontractors pretending aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons. With Operation Merlin you can work some real dark magic: You can tell the truth about Iran having what you so desperately want Iran to appear to have.

What Sterling was blowing the cover on was a push to war with Iran which was being leveraged by this dangerous and dubious sting operation which actually provided Iran with a direction to a nuclear weapon. It was a cynical attempt which, by the very nature of it's bungling (not Sterling's revelation, but the sloppy and amateurish nature of the blueprints) ended up thwarting any effort to actually discover the extent of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Here are some words of wisdom from the fellow you differentiate from Jeffery Sterling; Ellsberg, himself:

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has concisely summarized the context of the government’s efforts in the Sterling prosecution. “Sterling’s ordeal comes from a strategy to frighten potential whistleblowers, whether he was the source of this leak or not,” Ellsberg said in an interview for an article that journalist Marcy Wheeler and I wrote for The Nation. “The aim is to punish troublemakers with harassment, threats, indictments, years in court and likely prison -- even if they’ve only gone through official channels to register accusations about their superiors and agency. That is, by the way, a practical warning to would-be whistleblowers who would prefer to ‘follow the rules.’ But in any case, whoever were the actual sources to the press of information about criminal violations of the Fourth Amendment, in the NSA case, or of reckless incompetence, in the CIA case, they did a great public service.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/05/why-jeffrey-sterling-deserves-support-cia-whistleblower

[randome]

131. So Sterling outed an agent because Operation Merlin wasn't as flawless as he would have liked?

Do you think that every intelligence operations needs to be 100% successful or else it's fair game to reveal all the secrets that went into it?

It was an operation with a valid purpose, regardless of whether or not one agrees with that purpose and regardless of whether or not it succeeded.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

138. first of all, the subject we were discussing was his intial report to Congress

...whistleblowing, in my estimation.

I'm not agreeing with the jury that he was actually the source of the leak to Risen. As far as I can see, there is zero concrete evidence that he outed anyone. If you have it, present it here.

from John Hanrahan's January 24, 2015 article, 'Sterling Prosecution Long on Rhetoric, Short on Evidence':

Pressed by defense attorneys over the last two weeks, the various employees of the national security state could cite no one who had been killed or hurt as a result of the disclosures in Risen’s book, which came out nine years ago – more than enough time for the predicted cataclysm to occur.

No examples of prospective “assets” who had said no-thanks because of the Risen disclosures. No example of even one current asset who had quit over the disclosures.

[randome]

150. There was enough circumstantial evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one can prove that cigarettes cause cancer, either, but yeah, they do.

There was nothing illegal about Operation Merlin so what was Sterling whistleblowing about?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

156. answered in #116

...it was alerting Congress to a dangerously counterproductive attempt to provide Iran with nuclear blueprints for the dubious goal of slowing down a nuclear weapon's program which even the Clinton Administration didn't find evidence for. That conclusion that Iran was developing nukes was actually first introduced in any government report at that point as justification to get authority to carry out the blueprint plan. All of this took place in an atmosphere where Bush and others in Congress were looking for pretext to bomb or invade Iran over what the IAEA later determined was likely 'fabricated' evidence which they concluded did not indicate any nuclear weapons program at all in Iran.

Much like Ellsberg's opposition to the Vietnam war and his revelations of false flag event involving the Gulf of Tonkin, Sterling's revelations to Congress provided evidence of similar deceptions and U.S. government chicanery which they were using to portray and frame Iran as a nuclear aggressor.



Gareth Porter discusses this in his book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talknationradio-20140212

[randome]

159. 'Dubious'. Right. Not illegal, just Sterling's desire to protect us years after the fact.

After he was fired. After Congress said there was no 'there' there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

162. you completely ignored the essence of Ellsberg's own efforts

...and, apparently disregarded the importance of Sterling's revelations.

That's your choice, but it's clearly a judgment call. Nothing says 'whistleblowing' must contain illegalities to be considered credible and important.

[Feron]

92. Actually Obama has gone after leakers and whistleblowers..

far more zealously than any other administration.

http://www.propublica.org/special/sealing-loose-lips-charting-obamas-crackdown-on-national-security-leaks

[randome]

96. Sorry, an article that equates Snowden with a whistleblower is blatantly biased.

Snowden didn't even try to go the whistleblower route. He simply stole as much as he could then ran.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

53. Having read the article.....

Here’s the really scary part though: the jury convicted Sterling based entirely on circumstantial evidence: there was not one shred of evidence showing Sterling handing Risen classified information on the operation, the Russian asset, or the letter that Risen found but FBI could not.

My question: Based on the above paragraph, how did the jury reach it's decision?

Ridiculous.

[msanthrope]

54. It's not ridiculous. It's a mistake of law and fact to presume that circumstantial

evidence is somehow "lesser" than direct evidence. Enough circumstantial evidence, and a jury can and will find you guilty BRD. It will be a sound verdict, too. No body doesn't mean no murder charge...as clients of mine have found out.


Further...you will note Wheeler's sleight of hand....she focuses on the leak charges (7) but doesn't discuss the revealed agent charges (2). Why? Because whatever you think of the leak, you can't defend Sterling's actions toward Human Asset #1 as detailed in the indictment.

Or can you come up with a defense for revealing an agent in the field to sell a book?

[Orrex]

57. Oh yeah? What do you know about law?

[msanthrope]

58. I'm gonna ask Skittles to schedule you for an 'intervention.'

Seriously....are you enjoying the post hoc (note the lawyerly use of Latin there) defense of Judith Miller and Scooter Libby? I know I'm enjoying watching the FDL wing get trolled by CIA agents.

[Orrex]

60. Sadly

I've gotten to the point where I don't seriously chime in on these threads anymore, because I tend to become a lightning rod for accusations of police state enablement, etc.

Yes, we couldn't wait to crucify Miller and ol' Scooty-Scoot, and even Cheney himself, but when DU-approved secrets are revealed, we can ignore that whole "law" thing.

[msanthrope]

61. It's the new Libertarian streak at DU...the law simply doesn't apply to

those who have evolved politically.

[bigtree]

63. and here your posts and a few others have me thinking of a different 'streak' at DU

...authoritarian.

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
― George Orwell

[randome]

64. No! Not the dreaded 'A' word!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

71. apt response to the 'L' word

"Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Octafish]

77. Grok: Little Sister - the antidote to Big Brother

Instead of operating for the Who's Who set, it sheds light on Who-Knows-Whom:

http://littlesis.org/

For example, Phil Zelikow:

http://littlesis.org/person/69227/Philip_Zelikow

[grasswire]

205. excellent quote, thanks nt

[blackspade]

232. .....

[bigtree]

62. k&r

...thanks for posting, WillyT.

Marcy Wheeler, aka emptywheel on twitter, is one of the best sources available for factual and relevant information concerning this case and many other issues related to our intelligence agencies. She's the first and foremost person I read when i want to know what the scoop is. This is an amazing account (following several others before, after, and throughout the trial) which is a must-read for anyone who's interested in the truth and facts beyond the government's stacked and institutionally biased indictment.

[woo me with science]

66. K&R Thank you.

How revolting, the propaganda machine defending this.

This is the depth of corruption and oppression we now face.

[WillyT]

68. Propaganda Machine... Check Out The "Lawyers" At DU...

They know the law... but know very little about justice.

Glad they weren't practicing during Jim Crow.

[randome]

69. Neither you nor I are biologists or medical professionals.

But we know to get our kids vaccinated, right? If you're referring to msanthrope as a 'lawyer', one only needs to read her posts to understand that she knows what she's talking about.

And that's how I choose whose posts to give credence to: someone who sounds credible versus someone who sounds bitter.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

70. Well... I'm So Very Happy For Your Not Being "Bitter"...

Just goes to show...

As long as everything is right in your world... the rest of us are just malcontents.

Must be nice being you...

[Kelvin Mace]

91. There is the the law and their is justice

People should never confuse or equate the two.

[msanthrope]

100. Hey willy...you wanna bring racial bona fides into this?

Some of us are known for our public defense work, and for working election protection each and every single election to preserve the vote.

So you can toss your "Jim Crow" bullshit at me, but let's not forget which one of us was on the street in 2012......


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=293893

upholding the right of NBP to be outside a polling station. I was fortunate to be on the Steve Leser Show that evening, describing my experiences.

I'll see you at the polls, helping protect the vote in 2016, right?

[grasswire]

140. is there a link to that particular show somewhere on DU? nt

[msanthrope]

174. Here----

http://lmgtfy.com/

[bigtree]

181. okay

...rude, insincere, and, we're done.

[msanthrope]

183. You know....you seem to be suggesting that Risen's lack of testimony let an innocent man go to

prison.

If James Risen knows that Sterling isn't the source of either the leak, or the agent outed.......what has he done to fix this?

[bigtree]

184. done

[msanthrope]

187. Well--it's the obvious conclusion of what you write. You suggest that Risen's lack of testimony

led to Sterling's conviction.

I know that as a defense attorney, if my client was innocent, I would have NO hesitation landing Risen's ass in jail on a contempt charge until he confessed and exonerated my client---who is facing an 80 year jail term.

[riderinthestorm]

189. Sterling and Risen are friends. Do you think Sterling wanted his friend in jail?

There was no way Risen could have forecasted that there'd be a conviction in a case that's entirely circumstantial and is clearly a witch hunt.

Risen was damned if he did, damned if he didn't and was facing prison however he answered once he got on the stand.

He elected to not testify for anyone this time around.

There's always an appeal. I will reserve judgement until then.

[msanthrope]

193. Would you face an 80 year jail term for a friend? Look--of course Risen could have forecasted this

development....Sterling was going on trial.

You do realize there isn't a chance to "testify" at the appeal, right?

[riderinthestorm]

194. Sorry my bad

I'm guessing that IF the defense can get Risen to testify that may be grounds for a new trial. We don't know if Risen even gave any answers to Sterlings attorney.

His exoneration of Sterling would be important enough to warrant that imo.

Look we are NEVER going to agree and I have to get back to work. Like bigtree I'm bowing out for the afternoon.

[msanthrope]

197. No--you misunderstand....the defense had no bar, at all, to Risen being called to the stand.

The issue of the hearing on Risen coming to the stand was that the defense wanted to not call Risen but use his transcript from the hearing....thus limiting his testimony and preventing the government from crossing him and opening up the door to other issues.

The government, rightly so, noted that Risen was available, and because of the 4th circuit's ruling, the defense could call him.

The judge, citing 5th amendment concerns, threw the defense a bone and precluded an appeal point. Conviction happened anyway.

If I had an innocent client, I would move heaven and earth to get the testimony that would prove that. Here, the defense did not. What does that tell you?

[randome]

196. Do-over!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

216. Prescisely!!! nt

[WillyT]

252. "Would you face an 80 year jail term for a friend?"

Maybe...

Depends on the friend... and the circumstances.

Would you take on a German Shepard and a Fire Hose for a friend ???

People did...

[grasswire]

208. you're claiming that show as a cred...

....but you don't have the courtesy to provide a link? Okay.

[msanthrope]

209. I ain't your monkey.

[riderinthestorm]

145. Uhm, you could be anyone pretending.

That's the beauty of the Internet. Anonymity.

[msanthrope]

173. Look--I've said this before to posters....if you think I'm lying about being an Obama campaign

attorney, contact admin. I'm happy to give them my bar number.

They've got my name....and my license is in a public database.

[marmar]

73. Some of the responses to the OP are hilarious.....

..... and quite sad.

In essence, we'll justify any action, no matter how egregious, as long as a Democratic administration is carrying them out. Cognitive dissonance writ large.

[WillyT]

74. Word !!!

I'm NOT that kind of Democrat... never will be.

[Octafish]

76. Some of the associations going back to Smirko Madministration become clear, as well.

Seems to me that members of the flock added plausible deniability for the traitors, warmongers, banksters, and sundry crooks whenever pointed out by DUers. And that little toehold on the conversation is always enough for the flock to continue citing, ad infinitum, their disinformation.

Pisses me off, but that's OK. As long as the truth be known.

[ND-Dem]

147. Investigation of Sterling began under Bush.

[riderinthestorm]

152. He was charged December 2010. This is all on Obama

And they picked the Espionage Act to charge him under. A grotesque misuse of it.

This was an action deliberately designed to intimidate intelligence agents so they never whistleblow ever again.

Operation Merlin was dangerously flawed. Sterling tried to get that out to the public, that the CIA was participating in reckless and stupid operations.

He is going to pay a heavy price for trying to do that.

[ND-Dem]

154. he filed a racial discrimination suit in 2000. That's when it began.

In April 2000, Sterling filed a complaint with the CIA's Equal Employment Office about management's alleged racial discrimination practices. The CIA subsequently revoked Sterling's authorization to receive or possess classified documents concerning the secret operation and placed him on administrative leave in March 2001.[12][13]

After the failure of two settlement attempts, his contract with the CIA was terminated on January 31, 2002.[14]

Sterling's lawsuit accusing CIA officials of racial discrimination was dismissed by the judge after the government successfully argued the state secrets privilege by alleging the litigation would require disclosure of classified information. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, ruling in 2005 that “there is no way for Sterling to prove employment discrimination without exposing at least some classified details of the covert employment that gives context to his claim.”[15][16][17][18]

Conviction under the Espionage Act[edit]

Between 2002 and 2004, the U.S. federal government intercepted several interstate emails to and from Sterling, which were &quot ...) routed through a server located in the Eastern District of Virginia (...)". The authorities also traced telephone calls between Sterling and—according to a senior government official[7]—the journalist and book author James Risen. In the intercepted communications, Sterling allegedly revealed national defense information to an unauthorized person.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Alexander_Sterling

[riderinthestorm]

167. It was the Obama Admin that decided to charge him in 2010

I don't particularly care when the investigation began since it's a continuation of a vicious campaign to put the fear of God into whistleblowers from the intelligence agencies.

[msanthrope]

200. Don't you miss Hannah Bell on these threads? nt

[Octafish]

212. Even with you reminding us, yes.

Hannah Bell posted important information that shows the warmongers and banksters for what they are.

For instance:

Obama follows Bush’s modus operandi on Iran

And while I don't know who is correct on this and the other issues we can no longer get from Hannah Bell, I do know I prefer Hannah Bell's perspective over yours, msanthrope. You see, Hannah Bell wants me to hear the other side. You don't.

[msanthrope]

213. Hannah Bell is a banned troll..and you are missing the joke in the thread. nt

[ND-Dem]

241. "it's a continuation" = exactly my point

[msanthrope]

260. Nice to see you again. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

87. Oh, I see this all the time

People get VERY riled up when I point out we are a police state. The one response I love best is "It is an insult to the people living in real police states to claim that we are a police state."

[KoKo]

245. Cognitive Dissonance Writ Large....

Indeed....

[WDIM]

163. Dealing nuclear blueprints to the Iranians is illegal

Our Government employees should not be allowed to break the law. If Sterling exposed this he is a wistleblower because our government employees are breaking the law in this case. They should be the ones prosecuted for treason. I dont care if the plans were flawed what they were doing is wrong illegal could endanger millions of people and it should of been exposed.

In a Government of the people there should be no secrets from the people. We are the rulers of our government. The people that work for the goverment work for us. Our government cannot and should not be conducting illegal activities in the name of security or intel. When we allow our government employees a pass on following the rule of law we all lose . our government employees are not above the rule of law they write and enforce.

Whistle blowers like snowden and sterling are patriots that understand no goverment is more powerful than the people!

[Octafish]

233. + Infinity

Thank you infinitely for putting it into words, WDIM.

[WillyT]

235. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[woo me with science]

261. kick

[woo me with science]

262. kick

[woo me with science]

263. kick