Monday’s guilty verdict in the trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling on espionage charges — for talking to a newspaper reporter — is the latest milepost on the dark and dismal path Barack Obama has traveled since his inaugural promises to usher in a “new era of openness.”
Far from rejecting the authoritarian bent of his presidential predecessor, Obama has simply adjusted it, adding his own personal touches, most notably an enthusiasm for criminally prosecuting the kinds of leaks that are essential to a free press.
The Sterling case – especially in light of Obama’s complicity in the cover-up of torture during the Bush administration – sends a clear message to people in government service: You won’t get in trouble as long as you do what you’re told (even torture people). But if you talk to a reporter and tell him something we want kept secret, we will spare no effort to destroy you.
There’s really no sign any more of the former community organizer who joyously declared on his first full day in office that “there’s been too much secrecy in this city… Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.”
Instead, as author Scott Horton explained to me a few weeks ago, Obama’s thinking on these issues was swayed by John Brennan, the former senior adviser he eventually named CIA director. And for Brennan and his ilk, secrecy is a core value — partly for legitimate national security reasons and partly as an impregnable shield against embarrassment and accountability.
The Sterling case was until recently an even more direct attack on a free press, as Obama administration prosecutors repeatedly demanded testimony from New York Times reporter James Risen, who wrote about the botched plot against the Iranian government that they charged Sterling with divulging.
Risen’s testimony was crucial to their case, they said – although evidently it wasn’t. And their argument was that U.S. law recognizes no such thing as reporter’s privilege when a journalist received what the government considers an illegal leak.
Attorney General Eric Holder finally retreated from that particular attack on press freedom earlier this month, as my colleague Lynn Oberlander explained. Holder also announced revisions of DOJ policy on questioning journalists or obtaining information from media organizations about their sources. But as Oberlander put it, “the policy still leaves a fair amount of leeway for national security investigations — some of the most important reporting often based on confidential sources.”
Meanwhile, former CIA officer John Kiriakou is in prison, serving the last days of his over two-year sentence not for torturing anyone, but for revealing information on torture to a reporter.
Stephen Kim, a former State Department official who pled guilty to leaking classified information to a Fox News reporter, faces 13 months in prison.
And Thomas Drake, a former NSA official who provided classified information about mismanagement at his agency to a Baltimore Sun reporter, endured a four-year persecution by the government that the federal judge in his case called “unconscionable,” before prosecutors dropped all 10 felony charges and settled for a single guilty plea on a misdemeanor. The government’s message nevertheless was loud and clear. As secrecy expert Steven Aftergood told me: “In every significant sense, the government won, because it demonstrated the price of nonconformity.”
All of this has been happening during a two-decade-long shift in the cultural norms of the U.S. government, whereby reporters are now routinely blocked from communicating with staff unless they are tracked and/or monitored by public relations controllers.
And government officials are being told very clearly that their personal right to free speech does not extend to their work life, nowhere more clearly than in the intelligence community, where a new directive forbids employees from discussing “intelligence-related information” with a reporter unless they have specific authorization to do so, even if it’s unclassified.
Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has fared poorly on transparency scorecards and has failed to follow the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
By contrast, neither Obama nor Holder ever seriously contemplated any kind of prosecution or accountability for the application of torture – a heinous assault on human rights – that was rampant during the Bush era. Holder repeatedly and effusively ruled out any possible prosecution of those who followed orders they were told were legal. And Obama made it clear that he would not second-guess the people who gave the orders – a prima facie case of what my colleague Glenn Greenwald calls elite immunity.
Looking ahead to 2016, the prospects are grim. None of the major candidates for president have said anything half as powerful about openness, transparency and accountability as Obama did. And look where that got us.
Photo of Jeffrey Sterling, second from left, leaving Alexandria Federal Courthouse: Kevin Wolf/AP
I understanding the administration not wanting to create an atmosphere where employees have to worry if following a given order would later come with consequences, but it’s still disheartening that the Obama administration isn’t so much as doing a token punishment of someone who clearly went too far. And there are plenty someones who went undeniably too far.
I have to call BS on this whole piece. CIA officers swear to keep secrets for the government. It is literally their job. If we need to keep secrets, then we must bring to justice those people who have broken their promise to keep them. Otherwise a pledge is not worth squat. Two years for leaking classified information is a slap on the wrist!!
Last week, I tried to post a comment here that addressed a sentence or two of the article below (i.e. the comment had relevance to the article), but that article never showed. I tried posting on other journalists’s articles, and the outcome was the same.
I refuse to believe that TI could be censoring non-vulgar comments that are by and large, in compliance with the terms of use. Because that would be beyond ironic; it would be paradoxical when one considers the calibre of journalism here. So I choose to believe that it was some other parties who have reasons to feel threatened by my posts here.
I hope TI was not responsible.
Correction. “…of the article below…” was meant to read: “…of the article above…”. Sorry.
Attempting yet again to get this comment posted:
Yep, the “Amerikan” neo-Nazi witchhunts are in full swing and will only expand. Pretty soon the neo-Gestapo will be breaking down all dissenters doors in the middle of the night (their preferred time being between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m.) to take them away as “Unprivileged (supposedly having no rights) ‘Enemy’ Belligerents” to indefinite detention, aka imprisonment; which, like in Orwell’s “1984” and “V for Vendetta”, some if not many, if not most, of them will never exit from except in body bags.
This is beginning of erecting global government, which will be a worldwide totalitarian militarized police repression state, first by erecting it in the Western nations in the process of doing away with national sovereignty and borders; and, of course, it will be, actually already is being (see below), claimed is “necessary” in order to “save the planet”. But, in truth, it will be—hell, already is—erecting a state terrorizing enslavement state; with, as I’ve long said, no True Freedom and Liberty whatsoever, which they’re already in the serious throes of seeking to eradicate; innate, inalienable, immutable rights that are so much a part of us that they can of course be violated, but cannot be taken away from us.
People call all this a “conspiracy theory”, but top globalist leaders and advisers have called for it for decades. Bill Gates, a billionaire “eugenocide” supporter (neo-Nazi mass-murder of first the so-called “undesirables” and “useless eaters”, and then most of the human population of earth—seven billion people), just recently called for it again; so it’s definitely no conspiracy theory, and here’s the proof, as follows:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bill-gates-calls-for-global-government.html
Don’t fall for the calls to bow to this, people, no matter how much it is fraudulently portrayed as a panacea and the salvation of the planet and all those on it; for it will be the ultimate oppression and enslavement. It will require your first selling your soul to evil, and then sacrificing your life to evil. No one but God has any right to decide who lives and who dies, period.
Moderator: Thank you for posting my above comment.
The President should take a lesson from George Costanza when he did everything the opposite of what he normally would do, how could it be any worse?
The real tragedy is that all the whistle-blowers on Federal criminal operations get persecuted while the agents and personnel involved get rewarded and promoted inside Federal Agencies, including Homeland Security.
The corrupt criminal personnel form a network to continue criminal operations inside the US, as well as abroad, targeted activists, journalists, and others for crimes. Ted Gunderson had talked about the network of Law Enforcement and Homeland Security agency personnel that were involved in targeting citizens here, before he died.
After being targeted for burglaries, vandalism, pet torture and poisoning, malicious prosecution, as well as the planting of previously stolen and unknown origin property, the Homeland Security agency personnel, that are involved in these special covert operations groups targeting citizens all give each other alibis and protect the people above them who are authorizing these activities now on citizens.
The US is history. Any one who stays here is part of the problem, not part of the solution and they will eventually reap their karma.
Yep, the “Amerikan” neo-Nazi witchhunts are in full swing and will only expand. Pretty soon the neo-Gestapo will be breaking down all dissenters doors in the middle of the night (their preferred time being between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m.) to take them away as “Unprivileged (supposedly having no rights) ‘Enemy’ Belligerents” to indefinite detention, aka imprisonment; which, like in Orwell’s “1984” and “V for Vendetta”, some if not many, if not most, of them will never exit from except in body bags.
This is beginning of erecting global government, which will be a worldwide totalitarian militarized police repression state, first by erecting it in the Western nations in the process of doing away with national sovereignty and borders; and, of course, it will be, actually already is being (see below), claimed is “necessary” in order to “save the planet”. But, in truth, it will be—hell, already is—erecting a state terrorizing enslavement state; with, as I’ve long said, no True Freedom and Liberty whatsoever, which they’re already in the serious throes of seeking to eradicate; innate, inalienable, immutable rights that are so much a part of us that they can of course be violated, but cannot be taken away from us.
People call all this a “conspiracy theory”, but top globalist leaders and advisers have called for it for decades. Bill Gates, a billionaire “eugenocide” supporter (neo-Nazi mass-murder of first the so-called “undesirables” and “useless eaters”, and then most of the human population of earth—seven billion people), just recently called for it again; so it’s definitely no conspiracy theory, and here’s the proof, as follows:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bill-gates-calls-for-global-government.html
Don’t fall for the calls to bow to this, people, no matter how much it is fraudulently portrayed as a panacea and the salvation of the planet and all those on it; for it will be the ultimate oppression and enslavement. It will require your first selling your soul to evil, and then sacrificing your life to evil. No one but God has any right to decide who lives and who dies, period.
“And Thomas Drake, a former NSA official who provided classified information about mismanagement at his agency to a Baltimore Sun reporter”
No this is not true. Drake did not disclose secrets to the reporter. He was charged illegal “retention” of classified information (stuff on his computer, if I’m not mistaken) but not disclosure.
Too bad. A government employee divulged classified information to a reporter, and did not get away with it. Selling out our country has become so fashionable and normal, it is a great shock when a set of loose lips gets sent up the river where 4 hairy cell mates wait.
Wow, what a dick you are. If you’re so happy with Sterling’s conviction–and the extreme government secrecy and aggressive repression of freedom of the press, maybe you should move your ass to China or North Korea. You’ll fit right in, asshole.
What is it that authoritarians find so fascinating about rape fantasies? The only onse “selling out our country” are those who think “we the people” shouldn’t know what our government is doing. On our dime, no less.
To my fellow responders to Verneoz; you are much too easy in your criticism. By contrast; I offer a 10 ft. rope, and the limb of a big white oak tree as a treatment for his fantasies, altho by his comments, he would much prefer a place “up the river” with those of his persuasion.
Guess it’s perfectly fine when the government leaks classified information for their own purposes, which they do all the time… are your parents siblings?
I think Verneoz may be on the covert payroll, trying to justify his existence.
I could believe that he may be one of the war criminals that got promoted into Homeland Security agency positions to reward war criminals for the the perverted, mentally twisted crimes that have been occurring from the criminally insane involved in, CIA / military, secret society, criminal activities.
Where are my comments?
As to the torture aspect…..should American lives be lost because the government failed to elicit information from a captured suspect because he had “human rights”? NO NO NO You have to be human to have rights. But to drill down to root cause…..OIL
A ‘Hear Ye Hear Ye’ Production
This brings to mind the old adage that the optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds; the pessimist fears this is true.
I believe you are correct that President Obama represents the high water mark in terms of transparency and accountability. So we should simply enjoy the golden era in which we live. The future will indeed be much grimmer but there will be time to deal with that later.
You odd moniker name aptly reflects your odd comment. You don’t seem to understand what Froomkin meant, e.g. Obama despite campaigning as intending to bring openness and transparency to government turned out to be even worse than Bush, and that 2016 candidates look like shit. But the point is that what they say when campaigning is just bullshit to get elected. That most definitely was the case with Obama, who I always hated and knew to be a bullshit artist from the first time I heard his speeches on the 2008 campaign trail. Finally just because current candidates don’t LIE to such an extreme, deliberately misleading extent as Obama the oreo cookie did, doesn’t mean whomever gets elected will be worse. Actually they could possibly be better, but I’m not holding my breath as USA seems to be in a massive nose-dive for the past 45 or so years in terms of quality of life, job prospects, civil liberties, and good government. That is to say USA is turning into a banana republic shithole police state.
Some people believe that Obama was simply lying about his commitment to transparency.
Others believe that Brennan (or someone) convinced him to change his mind.
I don’t subscribe to either of these scenarios. He believed, and may still believe, in transparency in government. But as an executive, you run headlong into the culture of the institution of which you are nominally in charge. The CIA is committed to secrecy – to change that, it would be necessary to fire and replace just about the entire top management of the agency. Obama doesn’t have the political capital to do so, and to appear in charge, he has no choice but to acquiesce to the expectations of the existing bureaucracy.
His administration has charged more whistleblowers under the espionage act than all others combined. But the amount of information which is classified, based on existing bureaucratic protocols, is far greater than ever before. The ability to trace electronic communications is also greater than ever before. Therefore this situation is not the result of some unique fixation on secrecy on the part of the President, but an inexorable development of the evolution of the CIA itself. That which is secret is under their purview and control, and they will continue to expand the shroud of secrecy until such a moment (if ever) that the American people push back and create a political mandate for actual reform.
So yes, the next administration will be more secretive than the current one, and the one after that yet more secretive again.
quote” The ability to trace electronic communications is also greater than ever before. Therefore this situation is not the result of some unique fixation on secrecy on the part of the President, but an inexorable development of the evolution of the CIA itself. “unquote
An inexorable development of the evolution of the CIA itself. If ever a wannabe of Deep State leaked it’s peverse self reflection. Meanwhile, Landsdale would laugh in your face.
“…until such a moment (if ever) that the American people push back and create a political mandate for actual reform.”
That, in this manufactured climate of fear, is very doubtful.
Cheers, Benito!
Scott Walker has been pretty upfront with his governing of WI
One editorial and/or pollsters take on the Snowden whistleblowing:
“The federal government is very unlikely to let a Snowden-level security breach happen again. At the very least, for the foreseeable future, there just won’t be another bite at the apple for Mr. Snowden’s fellow travelers – or more moderate critics of the surveillance state.”
“The latest polling from Pew paints a stark picture: “Young people are more likely than older Americans to view the intelligence agency positively,” the organization reports. “About six-in-10 (61 percent) of those under 30 view the NSA favorably, compared with 40 percent of those 65 and older.”
http://www.pe.com/articles/snowden-759038-nsa-americans.html
I recall in 2008 or 2009, a bid online for developing a software whose requirements were that the software simulate, from a single server, multiple users across the nation and around the world, and their responses to surveys. These fake users would have complete IP addresses and all. In other words, manufactured consent.
I lost trust in all surveys following that.
Governments are taking the pea out of the whistle.
In Australia, Journos will get 10 years goal for disclosing government secrets.
Try to avoid the journals and publish on your own and the internet will be shut for you.
The barbarism of torture is now okay. Telling the truth is not okay.
The main stream media is controlled by a few who stand behind, next to and infront of the government.
Say something about the government deemed inappropriate and the media will ridicule, deride and accuse you of being a nut job, a wingnut, a looney tune, a conspiracy theorist or simply insane. None of those descriptions have any real meaning, they are just cheap shots.
http://www.sane.org/information/factsheets-podcasts/204-facts-and-figures-about-mental-illness
“Around 20% of adults are affected by some form of mental disorder every year.”
Having a mental illness should not exclude that individual’s right to be treated with dignity and respect.
Most people will suffer from some mental illness in their lifetime.
It’s important to understand the culture of the organization in which you work. If it conflicts with your own belief system, it’s unlikely to be a productive relationship.
For example, if you work for the US government, secrecy is paramount. It is also advisable not to be too squeamish about violating international laws, particularly those associated with human rights. Waste and fraud should not be deplored, but rather celebrated. All orders must be obeyed without question, although it’s acceptable to take your time about it.
Some people, sadly, are not well adapted to this environment. Fortunately, it’s possible to set up indoctrination programs to realign the personal beliefs of these maladjusted individuals into harmony with the values of the government. Once that’s completed, incidents, such as described in this article, will hopefully no longer happen (at least officially).
Heil Benny, you’re as good a pupil as Obama is, but with the only exception: poor Obama has not yet learned how to make it clandestine enough to appear a radiant leader…
Fot asolute free speech advocate (who wants people silenced)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_poke_the_bear
Wikipedia:Don’t poke the bear
snip
Examples of poking
Following editors to articles they are editing during an unrelated dispute
Adding wikibreak/retired tags to userpages of other users without their consent
Adding block templates to a blocked user’s page or talk page if the blocking admin has not
Having been asked not to (or otherwise knowing it is unwelcome), continuing to post on a user’s talk page
Fussing with another user’s userspace
Nominating all articles created by a user you have a dispute with for deletion
Repeatedly informing others about past block(s) of a user you have a dispute with
Telling an editor “I don’t know how many times I have to say this” after having said it only once and receiving a reasonable response
Suggesting an interaction ban over dispute with a new user, effectively topic-banning the established editor from their article niche
Addressing an editor you’re not on particularly good terms with as “dude”
Implying an editor may have mental health problems with the patronizing assurance “There is no conspiracy here.”
Telling an editor holding a minority position with conviction “Perhaps you’re not suited to working on a collaborative editing project.”
Supposing an editor who has irritated an Administrator is seeking “death by cop” or “suicide by Admin”
Suggesting to others that two editors in consensus over a point of contention with you are meatpuppets or sockpuppets
Commenting to others about a proven editor whom you don’t like “Wikipedia is better off without [that user].” (or its equivalent: “[That user] is not here to help build the encyclopedia.”)
Addressing an editor as “Friend”, or offering them “friendly advice”, when the opposite is meant
Dismissing a user’s considered thoughts out-of-hand by calling them “a wall of text” (or equivalently: “too long; didn’t read”)
This metaphor could mean more than you intended
Be careful not to imply that a specific individual is a bear. In Russia “bear” may be a compliment, but elsewhere(OED) it can mean a rough or bad-mannered person and “like a bear with a sore head” means very irritable. Using “don’t poke the bear” to hint that an editor is over-sensitive on a subject might not be true, and could be construed as a personal attack. You might also offend fellow editors if they think you are accusing them of “bear-baiting” – a bloodsport which involved setting dogs to attack a captive bear.(OED)
snip
I come here to learn. And whether I agree or disagree with the writers, every article gives me helpful information and insights.
The Comments section once did as well — but no more. The endless arrogance and domination by the mona-cindy-bonneville-kitt cabal is so beyond boring as to send this reader away.
If you’re okay with these home-bound egomaniacs usurping your brand, Glenn, then let it ride. If not, you need to (heaven forbid!) exercise some editorial control here.
Wow, hopefully everyone has had a chance to catch his/her breath.
Tis is slightly OT, but some of the same themes are playing out here, so I wanted to post this here. Kitt, (and all) that discussion on the NSA/Snowden) thread has sparked some cognitive associations and – voila – a new poem just up at my blog (and I hope y’all got my link to The Moodies’ video – great music and thoughtful, pretty appropriate lyrics).
Anyway, I invite all to read the new poem at:
http://observergal.blogspot.com
I want the idiot that keeps blocking my posts to step forward and explain itself.
No one can do all things well. Assuming we can is the root of Hubris and all John Ford’s fault.
Agreed. His foreign policy has been flaccid and his continuance of vile actions repulsive.
How little we like it, there is a place for an American Sniper in every war. So it goes. That’s what makes war horrifying.
That said, his efforts on the domestic side will do much to cut off the problem at its root – Congress and the military industrial complex.
That is the great enemy he has been stalking.
In his SOTU, the Chief Executive of the United States of America stood before a joint session of Congress and declared peace.
The authority of Congress to allocate and disburse funds in support of any contract or operation under the War Appropriations Act of 2003 is ended.
If Congress wishes to declare war against ‘ISIL’ and allocate funds to fund it, they are welcome to forward such a bill to the Executive Branch. Until such time as the Executive and Legislative Branch agree otherwise, we are at peace. The JCS were gnawing their cheeks out. They understood. Treachery got them nowhere.
Another low-key move is the Congressional de-funding of DHS. Cheney’s megalomaniac attempt at aping Hoover. It needs to die. Congress can fund its parts, again. DHS was too big to manage, too big to control and too big to do anything better than half-assed. Span of control. Until Congress can offer the Executive a bill he will sign, DHS is dead in the water. including the pipeline from arms merchants to local police. BTB – if your police chief is wearing military general’s rank…they’re dressing for the job he/she wants. Not the job they have.
Having undercut the military-industrial complex through bureaucratic means, The House’s disastrous Invitation offers an outstanding opportunity for the State Dept. to shut the Embassy doors in Tel Aviv. Uprooting the CIA and other undesirables and giving the place an airing out. Recognizing Palestine.
all potential paths for the Executive Office. SOTU was a world-class threat, with detailed explanations of what he intends for the New congress. couched in Camelot terms. But naked, open threats. Revenge is a dish best served up cold.
I don’t know what Obama said in the SOTU. I stopped listening to anything he said after it was clear he’d just as (or more) easily do nothing afterwards, or do the direct opposite. As for reducing the MIC, wow. Obama in both Libya and vs. ISIS has made it clear that he believes the Executive can wage war alone, no Congress needed. And he’s done little to nothing to reduce the Defense budget, certainly nothing that could lead anyone to think he was trying to reign in the MIC. Your thinking seems very wishful.
“We are at peace”? How do you figure? What, pray tell, is your definition of peace?
Obama spent last weekend hugging and kissing an Indian man whom his own government had refused to issue a visa for a decade due to participation in religious massacre. What better behavior can we expect from him?
> Indian man
democratically elected Indian man in the largest election in history
>refused to issue a visa
under a policy described as ‘absurd’
[1] http://news.biharprabha.com/2014/02/number-of-registered-voters-in-india-reaches-814-5-mn-in-2014/
[2] http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579520041301275638
There, FTFY
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
? Søren Kierkegaard
Unlike most politicians, brave journalists, whistleblower and honest public servants are NOT fooling people of the entire nation in the name of democracy.
Why do all of you heed the paid “comments” of the likes of government drones like “Nate” so much? It is obvious what he (or it) is.
Regarding Holder and the “repeatedly and effusively” hyperlink (do check it out). Holder: “The Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees.”
Once upon a time, the United States had a different concept.
Thanks. Brilliantly clear.
What you quoted from Holder also applies to police, of all types, all over this nation. This is the reason, possibly the number one reason, why we have not been able to get a handle on the rampant corruption we are suffering under. A few torture agents get prosecuted; things might change. A few abusive or corrupt or murderous cops get prosecuted; things might change. You can’t allow impunity to be the template and the go-to expectation for the ruling class, and their minion enforcers, and expect to have a society that is fair and just.
“You can’t allow impunity to be the template and the go-to expectation for the ruling class, and their minion enforcers, and expect to have a society that is fair and just.” – Kitt
Nailed it.
The progressive left’s demand that hundreds of billions of dollars be directed toward nourishment of its Big Government hyper-state allows for the expression of its police state. But the left goes mute whenever asked whether they want Big Government that they know does that.
Continue, as you had been before that idiotic, head-meet-hammer of a comment, not following me around.
No worries. When next the loon posts in Glenn’s space this account may go as well. He either watches the volume of his fuckwittery, or he gets canned. A lesson he repeatedly fails to learn.
You were MIA for an entire month, trying to get word in through Kitt, after you got a big head earlier in the year.
Yup — and Glenn got me back again after getting Intercept’s IT people to figure out the problem.
In contrast to you: Glenn has repeatedly banned your accounts, and you are so deranged and disrespectful that you keep flouting his decision by coming back under new accounts. He doesn’t want your great volume of lunacy here.
After you were humbled a little.
I have never been “humbled” by Glenn banning your accounts. #gratified
We need a more appealing comments system…….. perhaps one with a cuckoo clock icon right next to the “reply” button. We could tap it when needed……… It should be one of those animated emoticons: a brown cuckoo clock, with a little yellow birdie on a pole that pops out every hour or so, to let everyone know the KKrazyKount.
Fluff, what’s this fear you progressives leftists have of arguing facts, rather than casting ad hominem?
“what’s this fear you progressives leftists have of arguing facts, rather than casting ad hominem?” – bonneville
bonneville – What’s this predilection for pigeonholing and labeling – which is, in effect, ad hominem (so-and-so’s a progressive leftist) – rather than asking specific questions and/or arguing the facts?
“You were MIA for an entire month… – bonneville
And yet another off-topic, kill-the-messenger response. As others note, when you put your mind to it…it’s better than this. Unfortunately, it not often enough.
The (true) left wants “big government” to take care of those whom charity and church may not help ‘enough,’ and to ensure a financed infrastructure across the nation and a safety net for the disadvantaged. The alternative (it seems to them) is an indifferent society that punishes the disadvantaged and an infrastructure that is falling apart because of disproportionate financing of the military and (military-related) the ubiquitous surveillance state which serves primarily the elite and only secondarily national security.
If you can convince the (true left) that under the ‘paleo right’ infrastructure will be properly maintained, that the phenomenon of social security will remain solvent, and that the military-industrial complex will be disenfranchised – freeing up massive amounts for programs of social uplift – then you will see progressives admit leftism is hopeless.
You think the (true) right wing includes Fox News propaganda and is an essential American protest, but in truth the ‘right wing’ establishment (inclusive of talk radio loons like Limbaugh and Beck) is no more actually on your ‘paleo right’ side than the Rachel Maddows and Joan Walshes are really on the side of the progressives.
Yes, ‘big government’ largely affords the abuses we are seeing, but fewer regulations overall are obviously also demonstrably dangerous in this political climate. This is not a simple matter. If it was really just ‘big government’ at fault and not (functionally) big corporatism and big militarism OWNING this government (which neither the establishment-left nor the establishment-right wings want to undo), the libertarian or paleo right solution would be (with certain adjustments) monumentally effective and self-evidently appealing to all, but the entrenched corruption is too far gone for such a direct and (in modern terms) ultimately crude answer. Also, charity and church can not reasonably at present pick up the slack of income inequality and the resulting class divisions of ‘protected’ and ‘vulnerable.’ So, not only is the libertarian decency of your position being ignored by the corrupt establishment, the progressive alternative to attempt to address these miscalculations is also dismissed just as brutally.
Now, I know nothing of your apparent fixation with ‘sex kittens’ or accusations of Satanism, so please consider my remarks independent of such.
Charity and church helped enough just fine before Ted Kennedy’s HMO Act of 1973 commoditized “health care” and convinced Americans of the benefits of soured-date and bad hair day medications, and assembly-line hip replacements and bad back fusions, and seasonal “flu” vaccinations. Until the 1980s all hospitals were charities.
About FOX, there’s this just in from the NYT: “Mr. Murdoch remains intrigued by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, privately extolling his appeal to younger voters and his plans for a flat tax.” But consider the source, eh? We’ll see.
This “sex kittens” is a fixation of Mona’s, because she once had an adverse reaction to a vigilantcitizen.com post. She’s since welded it inseparably with mind-control slave material whenever she wants to deride Fritz Springmeier in attempts to diminish the credibility of non-msm sources that she feels reduce the stature of Glenn’s space in the eyes of the mainstream.
It’s funny–I was just gonna ask you about whether you’ll extol the virtues of Big Government hyper-state when fully aware of its natural police-state expression.
That was almost a concession that charity and church can’t help enough presently!
Thanks for that.
Fox News has some good, just as MSNBC does. Mostly (and too much) they both serve the same corrupt establishment, and both deliberately inflame the divide-and-conquer nonsense that prevents a mass movement against the establishment itself.
I happen to be a ‘sex kitten,’ so my bringing that up is really that I just don’t want our good names besmirched.
I believe the government should fear the people, as Jefferson said, but they’re not going to do that if all we do is blame each other.
Peace.
I never conceded anything of the kind, in part because hospitals are largely for-profit now. They’ll continue to help where they’re not asked to pay for just any confection or pseudo-disease or complication that the progressive left can dream up.
Beneficial longer-term change doesn’t occur without cost awareness and some personal sacrifice. The housing bubble wasn’t reversed that way, and “education” and “health care” won’t be. Bubbles correct when costs plateau, then drop, because their product can no longer be sold in their entireties to spent individuals.
Well, you almost conceded it. I’ll take what I can get.
So, “you exemplify the gruff grumpiness of your stubborn position and you are evidently entirely inflexible, which will of course result ultimately in communication breakdown” is obviously what I should have said.
How silly of me.
By the way, “Meow.”
That all became clear when the madman was commenting in Glenn’s Guardian space. He approvingly linked to a deranged book online by Fritz Springmeier which includes a great deal of discussion about the terrible plague of Satanically mind-controlled “sex kittens.”
One Springmeier fan quoting his book explains things thus:
Rest of some extended nonsense, w/ ample Springmeier quotes and citations, here: http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/
Bonnie defended the “sex kitten” thesis at the Graun.
Bonnie is deeply insane.
I don’t think the poster is insane, any more than I agree that Kitt is a ‘sociopath,’ as Bonneville claimed. Bonneville is in my view very mistaken about some things, but is also alarmed about significances that do indeed have merit.
No, Bonnie is insane. No stable person believes all the things he spouts and links to.
Bonnie’s pal and authority Fritz Springmeier, BTW, committed armed robbery of a bank to gain funds to spread his…unusual views. For this Fritz spent nearly 10 years in a federal prison.
Mona: “No, Bonnie is insane. No stable person believes all the things he spouts and links to.”
So the “Debbie” thing was BS? It’s a guy? Okay, well, that explains certain things.
But really, believing Obama or Feinstein or Pelosi or Brennan or Buffet or Koch or McCain or Christie or Clinton or Bush… I’d say no one ‘stable’ buys all that stuff, either, for all pro-establishment beliefs are (technically, now, given the indifference to empathy involved) truly mentally deranged and anti-social to the point of functional retardation.
Bonneville is an anti-conformist, at least. If it turns out he’s just an idiot pretending to be one, okay, I was wrong. But I don’t think so.
Bonnie as a “non-conformist” who supports and links to grossly homophobic and antisemitic “Brother Nathanael.” Spare me his lunatic and reactionary “non-conformity.”
Mona, I’m not saying anything he says should be accepted, in fact I said I think he’s wrong about some things; I just believe that he is not insane or unduly establishmentarian.
I’d personally rather deal with him than a POS Bill O’Reilly/Sean Hannity type OR a mealy-mouthed lying POS ‘progressive-pretender’ who really just supports whatever the Democrats do (and makes excuses for the same).
(There is the chance, of course, that Bonneville’s only protesting precisely BECAUSE a Democrat is president. If that’s the case, I’m wrong and you’re right, he’s a worthless contribution to anything.)
Personally – given that ‘Brother Nathaniel’ is indeed a damn fool, in my view – I’m finding a lot of pro-gay voices and ‘anti-anti-Semitism’ voices lately that want to CURB free speech, so I find this gauge (pro-LGBT rights and anti-calling-out Zionists) a bit wanting as an overall measure of liberty.
“Get a fucking grip, dude.” -Cindy, Jan. 20
Yes, Bonneville, I would like you to focus.
You’re better when you do. No, really.
“Get a fucking grip, dude,” was meant in this sense, although at the time I assumed you were female (we call each other ‘dude’).
Oh please.
That the Zionists engage in pinkwashing and purport to see antisemtism in everyone who doesn’t genuflect before “the only democracy,” does not remotely render sane and reasonable such Nathanael shit as “A CHRISTmas Hating Jew Is Foiled!” how Jews really are Christ-Killers and how they run the ACLU to take make everyone homosexual. Just take a look at this vile and crazy creature’s site: http://www.realjewnews.com/
YOU may want to claim significant commonality with a sicko like Bonnie who finds merit in such filth. I don’t, and more importantly, neither does Glenn. Bonnie won’t respect that he’s been pointedly asked to leave.
By who Mona? Glenn never pointedly asked me to leave. Kitt hopped up and down and wanted me banned (June 25) because I said something bad about Occupy. And you’re developmentally crippled in a clique mindset.
Wait, wasn’t it the right that both created and applauded the creation of the biggest government bureaucracy in history, the lumbering retard, 200,000 employee Department of Homeland Security? Why, yes…it was indeed.
Homeland Security was crafted directly by Connecticut’s liberal Joseph Lieberman, who persuaded a neocon (aka leftist Republican) Bush for authorization.
Neither are right wingers.
Later, their agents were to found in temporary rolling venues throughout the lefty NYC subway system during the progressive Mike Bloomberg administration, complete in airport bright blues with white shoulder patches and black epaulettes, set up on folding tables to check bags in front of turnstiles.
Only in your publicly humilated, leftist brain.
In fact the both chambers of the conservative Texas Legislature were prepared to unanimously vote to ban TSA practices from in-state airports. This is what happened next:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/05/25/tsa-threatens-to-cancel-all-flights-out-of-texas-if-groping-bill-passed/
Where was your state?
And that was Prime Minister Sir Oswald Mosley. And now, the BBC World Service presents this interlude for our friends in pre-occupied America.
” But the left goes mute whenever asked whether they want Big Government that they know does that.” – bonneville
These “left, leftist, et al.” labellings and pigeonholing that are being used to paint with broad brush strokes whatever suits at the time on here are again being used to poor effect, and especially so in this regard.
It’s not any specific left/right/centrist ideology that drives the police state ever onward due to a lack of complaint; it’s the capitalists that own the representatives and bureaucrats that make and enforce the laws that makes it so. It’s greed, power, and selfishness that make it so – and these traits are ideologically-neutral in the current political/social/monetary climate, where the almighty dollar trumps all.
No labels or pigeonholes are needed to find the answers for any of these dilemmas that are constantly ascribed to the “leftist” silence; “leftist” compliance; “leftist” followers; “leftist” nanny-staters; “leftist” media; or whatever else might lazily be called “leftist” simply due to a lack of actual evidence to support this ongoing “pigeonholing-is-an-argument” premise.
In other words, due to a severe lack of evidential support and clarification, all of these labels and pigeonholes are nothing more than straw-men and pseudo-arguments, that are used instead of an argument – and as such are equally DOA.
“I had become too accustomed to the pseudo-Left new style, whereby if your opponent thought he had identified your lowest possible motive, he was quite certain that he had isolated the only real one. This vulgar method, which is now the norm and the standard in much non-Left journalism as well, is designed to have the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst.”
~ Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir
*For those just joining the discussion…
Love the last line, thanks for that.*
“…it’s the capitalists that own the representatives and bureaucrats that make and enforce the laws that makes it so. It’s greed, power, and selfishness that make it so.”
If I may indulge a little irritating pigeonholing of my own, I find that the terms ‘corporatism and militarism’ summarize the problem better than ‘capitalism, greed, power and selfishness,’ although the unfettered nature of these is ideally encompassed by my preferred words.
I think you already know this and are being deliberately provocative in this instance, but just to say that ‘capitalism’ (per se) is in the wrong will alienate all of your readers who don’t self-identify primarily with socialism.
*Hitchens’ going through waterboarding and pronouncing it unequivocally ‘torture’ goes a long way with me, although I dislike his work intensely.
“If I may indulge a little irritating pigeonholing of my own…” – Cindy
In this particular case, you are not pigeonholing. You are expanding on a thought, which is the opposite and much appreciated.
By “capitalism” in this sense I mean the bastardized economic system that exists for the benefit of the few rather than the many.
And by the few I mean those who have enough money to influence our elected representatives and our laws to many’s detriment. So in my mind it could be a corporation or an individual, it would still be the same – money buys power in this, as some have described I think fairly, the current “crony-capitalist” society.
As we see, everyone has “preferred words” that too often are used to pigeonhole a discussion to the extent that it will never take flight and develop into a mutual understanding, even if the end result is full or partial disagreement. And they do it on purpose.
That’s always been my beef on here – that some – such as CraigSummers and bonneville – would rather have this argumentative tidiness that labels and pigeonholes provide rather than a lively debate about not what we think others are thinking, but finding out what they actually think. And that, most often, takes time and energy.
With regards to Mr. Hitchens I try to treat his thoughts as I do others – that is until unequivocally proven otherwise, his and others thoughts and ideas are to be held innocent of intellectual dishonesty en-masse, and separate thoughts are to be treated desperately insomuch as they are not obviously interconnected.
For what it’s worth, if you have not yet read Hitchens Letters to a Young Contrarian I recommend it. And by recommend it, I mean that I found it provocative – not that I agreed with every premise put forth in it.
“Time spent arguing is, oddly enough, almost never wasted.” – Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
“and separate thoughts are to be treated ***desperately…
Apologies – I meant to say distinctly…
Ironically, there’s a recent string of this sociopath Kitt’s directly responding to me, beginning with the immediately above.
There’s another here (firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/26/secret-badass-spy-program/), at 9:53.
And another (firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/20/obamas-cyber-proposals-sound-good-totally-clueless/): 11:51
At no time was Kitt spoken to by myself previous to doing it.
I didn’t request for me not to reply to you. I don’t have a record of making remarks to you that have zero to do with whatever it is that you commented about. You, on the other hand, have that record of following me around and posting hamster droppings immediately beneath my comments.. Nothing ironical about it. There is no comparison between my replies to you and your nonsensical, incoherent, non sequitur comments to me following any comment that I post. Calling me a sociopath, as you did in your “ironically” comment, is an example of that incoherent nonsense.
In fact just yesterday I wrote:
Top branch. And Kitt replied directly to that:
So you have to wonder what Kitt’s up to with the suggestive comments.
That’s a perfect case in point. Your comment didn’t have anything to do with the article that had just been posted. And your comment was one of the first, if not *the first comment below the article.
Here’s another recent instance where Kitt responds to me directly–I wonder why–where I’d outlined a general comment to the thread at large (firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/07/intercept-liveblog-charlie-hebdo-offices-attack/): 10:56
Any replies that I ever made to Kitt were made directly about Kitt’s socio-economic brand of advocacy on these pages. The poster didn’t want to be put on the spot by questions about approval or not of Big Government hyper-state, with a full awareness of its nourishment of police state. (And still avoids it.)
But Kitt’s dumb isn’t an act.
Kitt can’t even think up epithets independently without watching the work of John Kelly, who didn’t appreciate my looking into comment archives to prove a quote once.
Interestingly archives were removed when Kitt started parroting John and wanting me banned for saying something negative about Occupy (on June 25 of this year for example). Just bottom of the barrel.
You have not been banned repeatedly because you “make negative comments” about Occupy. Rather, you’ve been banned because you flood the place with insane links and commentary, as well as repetitive dumping of the same claims about leftists and Occupy — over and over and over again.
The combination of your great output with its also being largely being demented or repetitive, is why you have repeatedly been banned. And will be again.
Why don’t you respect that Glenn doesn’t want you here? Why do you make it necessary for him to repeatedly take the time to ban yet another of your accounts?
Glenn never said he doesn’t want me here, and this volume you complain about only occurs when you jump in and irresponsibly fan conversations with crocodile tears and hysteria.
Kitt indeed, on June 25, taunted me with banishment because I quote “lie(d)” about Occupy. And the poster made noises about how s/he was writing to the Intercept about wanting me banned. (Kitt also previously dropped names on this site about how s/he has once met personally with Glenn at a venue.)
Shortly thereafter comments of mine on the then current NPR-related thread were wholesale erased, with Kitt’s false-witness bearing remaining standing.
For someone with Kitt’s fake phobias about whenever s/he feels put on the spot with occasional commenter-response about support of hyper-state Big Government while whining about police state, Kitt sure does like the proximity of responding to me directly about unrelated matters.
I wouldn’t go by Nuremberg, which was a travesty of justice in just about every way imaginable. Firstly it was victor’s justice. The allies–and not merely Russia, though it was the worst–committed every “crime” the Nazi committed, including mass murder, enslavement, forced migration, false imprisonment, and unprovoked invasion. Secondly, though you speak of “crime under international law,” there was no such thing. Everyone convicted at Nuremberg violated Ex Post Facto laws. Plus, the legal authority prosecuting, judging, and punishing them popped up spontaneously,without bothering to justify its claim to sovereignty. Supposedly they represented Humanity, but Humanity doesn’t automatically consent because they said so.
Leave aside due process, rules of evidence, lack of precedent, etc. They didn’t even stick to only accusing people of what they thought them guilty of. The Katyn Massacre was in the bill of indictment even though everyone and their mother knew the Soviets did it. You can’t explain that away by pointing out no one was ultimately convicted of it. That might suggest these weren’t show trials, since in show trials verdicts are known from the outset. But just because they left a bit undetermined, just because they allowed themselves to be surprised by a light sentence or acquittal or two doesn’t mean they weren’t shoe trials. Because they were.
However harshly we treated Germany, and we did (firebombing cities, using slave labor, relocating populations against their will, splitting the country in three, keeping them near starvation, etc.), they were still useful. We started collaborating with Nazis right away. So we couldn’t kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean justice entered into consideration.
another brave citizen who will only be honored in the rump…
the traitors to the constitution rule; the morally bankrupt judge; and the monied steal the rest…
Empire must fall.
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxTafqejV6k#t=6556
Drill footage:
1:49:45
Aerial footage showing a long line of fire house participants is visible moving in unison around two entire sides of the station.
1:50:00
Officers bust out the snacks, chips, bananas, and bottled water onto the hood.
Presidents, and their entourage, are considered transient visitors to be managed, and controlled, by the permanent organs of government – especially the DoD , CIA , and other secret agencies.
While I concur with your perspective, not based on personal knowledge, rather from watching the parade of promise breaking candidates turned office holders since Kennedy, I must ask if your statement is based on more than observation and suspicion. Can you, in fact, document that which seems so obvious to so many?
Though not as high up, Jesse Ventura relates what happened at an invitation upon his gubernatorial election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K30siX8-9sU
Thanks for the link. It also gave me a starting point to look further.
Norman Solomon: *The Invisible Man: Jeffrey Sterling, CIA Whistleblower*
“Sterling was one of the very few African-American case officers in the CIA. He became a whistleblower by virtue of going through channels to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003 to inform staffers about the CIA’s ill-conceived, poorly executed and dangerous Operation Merlin, which had given a flawed design for a nuclear weapons component to Iran back in 2000. Long story short, by the start of 2011, Sterling was up against the legal wall. While press-freedom groups and some others gradually rallied around Risen’s right to source confidentiality, Sterling remained the invisible man…”
“Two weeks ago Jeffrey Sterling went to trial at last. He was at the defense table during seven days of proceedings that included very dubious testimony from 23 present and former CIA employees as well as the likes of Condoleezza Rice. When a court clerk read out the terrible verdict Monday afternoon, Sterling continued to stand with the dignity that he had maintained throughout the trial. At age 47, Jeffrey Sterling is facing a very long prison sentence. As a whistleblower, he has done a lot for us. He should be invisible no more.”
Article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/the-invisible-man-jeffrey_b_6556552.html
Is it too old fashioned (circa pre-1950’s) to suggest voting for one of the third party candidates that gets ballot access in states totaling a majority of the population? You already called the Democratic and Republican parties’ slate of candidates “grim”, could you not have taken the next and common sense step of suggesting that there will likely be at least two alternatives (The Libertarian and Green Party candidates for sure) to said authoritarian candidates? Voters who care about their rights should at least TRY to show some dissent, even if the news media writes off doing so as a “wasted vote” or fails to mention that alternatives do exist, and even if there is a risk that the Establishment might fudge the vote. Apathy and defeatism is nearly as bad at times as outright supporting that which one claims to be against.
I think The Intercept needs to follow Democracy Now!’s lead, and make news reports on third party candidates once in a while. Amy Goodman did a wonderful job at that during the 2012 election:
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/10/23/watch_full_expanding_the_debate_special_from_oct_22_featuring_jill_stein_rocky_anderson
Advocacy Journalism at it’s finest. Let’s compare the Intercept’s coverage to other media outlets:
The Intercept
Here’s how other news organizations covered this:
Washington Post
The New York Times
Associated Press
McClatchy DC
Politico
LA Times
Reuters
All of these publications other than the Intercept led off their articles with a true representation of what happened. Sterling leaked to “a NYT reporter” classified documents on Iran’s nuclear program. The Intercept is immediately guilty of spin, telling us that Sterling was found guilty under the scary espionage act just for talking to a reporter!! Furthermore, he includes “torture” in the title of the article, when the Sterling case – clearly the focus of the article, based on the photograph and today’s verdict – did not involve torture. It tells me that TI is just as willing as other outrage media to resort to clickbait tactics.
A couple other things that these articles talked about that Dan conveniently omitted:
* Dan did not mention that Sterling was found guilty on ALL 9 counts, nor did he mention any of them such as being guilty of obstruction of justice.
* The Washington Times, Politico, the NYT, Washington Post and McClatchy all talked about the prosecution’s claims that Sterling did this in retaliation against the CIA. Strangely, Dan Froomkin omits this pertinent information, and doesn’t mention any comments of the prosecution or AG at all.
* Dan accepts as a fact, based on James Risen’s book State of War, that the Iran operation was “botched,” as stated in this article. But Dan doesn’t point out that prosecution’s case questioned Risen’s narrative, and as the Washington Post noted “Government witnesses and agency memos challenged facts in the Risen book and showed the Merlin operation was still going until January 2006….Publication of Risen’s book ‘shut it down completely and made all of our efforts for naught’ was the court testimony on Jan. 14 of Bob S., who was the CIA’s operations director in its nuclear counterproliferation unit and overseer of the Merlin program.” It would appear that Dan needs to listen to Glenn’s advice on not accepting as fact, information from anonymous sources.
* Dan obfuscates and deflects discussion away from the Sterling matter by spending a significant amount of time talking about torture and other cases such as John Kiriakou and creating an impression that Sterling was just another person getting railroaded by the USG. Since he cannot (or will not) make a strong defense of Sterling, he conflates it with other cases, including the outrageously case against Thomas Drake. Dan thereby equates Sterling to all those others who have supposedly been victimized by the Justice system. dan says there are
* Dan pretends that Obama is a hypocrite to want information that is classified to remain so, by the employees and contractors who said they would. Did Sterling exhaust all of his internal options? Did he go to a supervisor, general counsel, the IG, Congress? Nope! Since he did none of that, he has no leg to stand on. You don’t just sign a non-disclosure agreement and then ignore all the rules that surround it! Dan seemingly believes that nothing in the entire government should be a secret. That may cut it for morally-superior bloggers, but not for the people actually having to implement policy and protect information and sources.
* Several of the other articles point out the Obama Administration’s significant track record against leakers, but Dan is clearly the most petulant about it and goes off on the furthest tangent. Apparently Obama is now “complicit” in the torture coverup even though the Torture Report’s ES was released by the Senate. Explain how that works Dan? Dan even sinks to the pathetic tactic of derogatorily calling Obama a “Community Organizer,” a Fox News type method of attack.
* Dan characterizes Kirakou as being in prison for “revealing information on torture to a reporter.” Wrong again Dan. He got 30 months for disclosing the name of a covert officer to a freelance journalist. NYT: “As Judge Brinkema said, ‘This is not a case of a whistle-blower.’ She went on to describe how the identity of the C.I.A. officer working under cover had been revealed by Mr. Kiriakou’s disclosures, and the damage it had caused the agency, based on a sealed statement from the undercover agent.”
Out of all the articles I read, The Intercept’s and the LA Times’ were by far the least informative. For all Dan’s whining and complaining about the “elitist” media, they sure did a better job than you here.
Could you quote where all of the other media made these points. Quoting Froomkin:
Mona, part of my point was that these other articles primarily focus on the Sterling case and don’t fly off the rails as Dan did to try to deflect criticism from Sterling and include in the title “torture” and then mention the word four more times in the narrative. The Sterling case had NOTHING to do with torture. Dan knows this but uses torture to frame his supposed point that Sterling is just another case of going after a whistleblower. Throughout all those articles, I searched the word “torture.” Foreign Policy was the only outlet that mentioned it (once when describing Kiriakou, i.e.”Former CIA officer and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, for example, made a deal…”). Is this because all the “elite media” operate in deference to the USG or is it because torture has nothing to do with this case? It’s the latter. Obama’s failure to prosecute Bush appointees is a legitimate issue that has been discussed extensively but what does it have to do with Sterling? Zilch, Zip, Nothing. And appealing to hypocrisy is fallacious.
But to answer your question, I would hope that none of those outlets (er, except the Washington Times) would resort to such emotional, outlandish and broad criticism but I’ll tell youwhat each said that was not related to the Sterling case:
New York Times
“…there have been eight cases, and journalists have complained that the crackdown has discouraged officials from discussing even unclassified security matters…Most of those charged since 2009 have pleaded guilty and avoided a trial. Of those, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer, is in federal prison, as are two former government contractors, Donald Sachtleben and Stephen Kim. Thomas A. Drake, a former National Security Agency official, cut a deal on a minor charge and avoided serving time…The only other trial was the military court-martial of Chelsea Manning, the Army private formerly known as Bradley Manning, who was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison for providing a trove of government documents to WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy organization…The most prominent leak case, however, remains open. Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor…
Washington Post:
“Other leak cases have resulted in pleas, at least one with terms favorable to the defendant. Former National Security Agency manager and accused leaker Thomas A. Drake pleaded to a reduced charge that called for no prison time. Prosecutors reached an agreement that brought a harsher penalty for former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was sentenced to 2½ years in prison for disclosing a covert operative’s name to a reporter. Federal authorities are still considering charges against several high-profile individuals in other probes, including former CIA director David H. Petraeus, veteran State Department diplomat Robin Raphel and retired Marine Gen. James E. “Hoss” Cartwright.”
Washington Times:
No non-Sterling related information.
Politico
No non-Sterling related information but one of the most detailed accounts I read.
McClatchy
No non-Sterling related information.
LA Times
No non-Sterling related information. This article sucks.
Reuters
“The conviction is a victory for the Justice Department, which under the Obama administration has prosecuted a record number of unauthorized leaks by government employees. Holder came under fire in 2013 over the Justice Department’s decision to seize telephone records of the Associated Press, a move denounced by critics as a gross intrusion into freedom of the press. Earlier this month, Holder revised the department’s policy to require the attorney general to authorize any subpoenas to members of the news media.”
Foreign Policy (forgot to include on my first post)
“In a development that press freedom advocates say will have a severely chilling effect, a federal jury on Monday convicted former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling of leaking information about an operation aimed at hindering Iran’s nuclear program to a reporter for the New York Times…According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Obama’s Justice Department has initiated eight prosecutions under the Espionage Act for leaks of classified information — more than double the previous total number of such prosecutions since the law took effect in 1917. Most of those charged, however, have made plea deals and avoided trial. Former CIA officer and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, for example, made a deal that saw Espionage Act charges dropped”
If you want a semi-competent defense of Sterling, perhaps go read the Huffpost article by Norman Soloman (I’d link to it and all the other articles but TI’s arcane comment system won’t allow it.)
Poor Nate.
Cindy linked to it, and there it is.
Kitt with another inane comment. Color me surprised
I said “it and all the other articles.” As in I would have posted all the links but then my post would disappear into the ether. Try to keep up Kitt, this isn’t string theory.
The following quote by Nate is an example of the pompous, authoritarian and just blindingly boring level of ugly that is Nate which leaves me to have nothing to say to him that wouldn’t be laced with highly deserved insults.
Now here is an excerpt of text from an actual and real human being — rather than an authoritarian blowhard robot — writing about the Jeffrey Sterling case.
“The other thing I think the defense might have grounds to appeal was Leonie Brinkema’s decision (which remains classified) that kept out details showing that several of the witnesses against Sterling — up to four of the people cleared into the Merlin operation — had, like Sterling, kept classified documents at home. One of the few concrete pieces of evidence against Sterling was that he had kept (probably retroactively) classified documents at home, which the government presented in big red printed SECRET folders. But, if (as seems highly likely) Bob S also did the same, it might raise questions about why FBI never investigated him as a potential source.
“There’s much more that raises questions about the legitimacy (though not necessarily the outcome) of the trial, such as the things CIA managed to keep secret, including that the CIA had declared state secrets over some of the evidence submitted at trial to deprive Sterling of the ability to sue for discrimination.
“And, finally, the verdict raises real questions about the economy of leaks in DC, in which people may point reporters to stories, only to have the reporters dig up damning evidence from other sources (which is what seems most likely to have happened here). Jeffrey Sterling just got found guilty for causing James Risen to publish a story to (the government claimed) avenge his crummy treatment by the CIA. Sterling’s guilty verdict allows no room for Risen to have decided to publish a story about CIA’s horrible record on WMD. This verdict will not only send Sterling to prison, but it turns journalists into agency-free vehicles of their sources.”
Marcy Wheeler — Emtpywheel
Error Correction:
Sterling’s Defense Attorney said Sterling contacted the SSCI in 2003. Therefore, assuming he shared similar information, he DID go through proper channels.
https://exposefacts.org/jeffrey-sterling-the-governments-circumstantial-case/
Sorry!
Try to keep up, asshole.
Keep up with who? You!?
Kitt, one could be in a coma and keep up with you on your best day.
You just apologized for making a huge, rambling finger pointing mistake. That’s what the “keep up” was about, you insufferable blowhard. You’re not the bright bulb that you wish to be seen as; which is news to no one, probably not even to you.
Kitt: ask yourself, did your input result in me correcting my mistake? That would be a big fat “No.” My reading of a separate article did that. I self-corrected a post.
Yet you strangely attempt to use my own correction as proof that I am not the “bright bulb that [I] wish to be seen as.” if I truly thought my word was the gospel, why would I correct myself?
It’s because some people want to present accurate information, and I’m putting my money where my mouth is. but nobody is perfect, and I am far from it. But I still try to get stuff right. this is probably foreign to you because your posts are filled to the brim with insults and irrelevancies. You don’t put your opinions on the line and mount reasonable arguments, so you have nothing that needs to be corrected and nothing to lose. You take the path of least intellectual resistance – name calling, insults, and that’s about it.
Nate, you are a pompous, smarmy picker of nits, most nits existing only in your own gas-filled head. I occasionally choose one “point” in your stream of shite to highlight your idiocy, as does Kitt. But do not mistake that for anyone here taking you seriously.
And only so he could get it out there before someone else did. (I wouldn’t have because I don’t bother with most of his “points.”)
What a lazy methodology. Mona, here’s a tip to overcome my “nitpicks”: don’t read and don’t respond! If you aren’t going to try to have a mature response, don’t engage! After all, I’m long past reading your posts unless they are in response to mine. Your credibility as an commenter went out the door when you said you’d never criticize Glenn. Why hear what you have to say when all you do is repeatedly parrot Glenn and moan about the zionists?
Mona, don’t pretend you know what motivated me to correct my post. People correct posts all the time; I’d probably prefer an “edit” button but that is not available now is it? And even if I did correct it before somebody else did, so what!? You either try to correct it or you don’t. And you accuse me of being a nitpicker!
It’s almost like you wear your willful ignorance like a badge of honor!
“[Mona’s] credibility as an commenter went out the door when [Mona] said [she’d] never criticize Glenn.” – Nate
And your credibility as an arbiter of credibility has strained all credulity with this comment. Free speech and Brazil, anyone?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” – Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Horseshit. I never said that, and it’s absurd. I strongly disagree with Glenn on a number of things, and have been doing so here recently on issues pertaining to Charlie Hebdo. He and I had a pointed exchange here in comments that has been ongoing in private.
You are as demonstrably wrong about that as you are about most of the things you post.
I don’t claim to be an arbiter of credibility for others. Just for myself. The only posters whose content I ignore are Kitt’s, Mona’s, and people who make unhinged, semi-coherent comments such as that dude who said “Stazi” in every sentence.
Two blowhard examples in just two sentences. 1)That you think I would give a damn if it was my input that resulted in your correction. 2)Demonstrative cliche rank and childish language used to express your blowhard “input.” “That would be a big fat “No.”” There’s that bright bulb I was talking about all right.
@Mona: your memory fails you Mona. Your comment on November 26:
It’s like you don’t even recognize the absurdity of this hero worship! Are you Glenn’s publicist, lawyer, or public relations spokesperson? Sorry it “cramps your style” Mona but you exaggerate the problem.
cogent, clear juxtaposition (of the two-tiered American legal system):
torturers (Obama, Brennan) and their apologists (Holder) versus whistle-blowers (Kiriakou,Manning)
classic froomkin!
Has anybody clicked that “flunked transparency scorecards” link? It looks like he got a B- to me.
I don’t like him, but I don’t like an inaccurate press, either.
NYT op-ed page doesn’t have anything on the Sterling case right now; you’d think they’d be perturbed or something. They did have a Jan. 22, 2015 op-ed on “The James Risen Case”, which was of interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/lessons-of-the-james-risen-case.html?_r=0
Incidentally, regarding this story’s mention of reporters’ (evidentiary) privilege, the NYT story mentions that the 4th Circuit denial is now case law, so the permanent damage is done. (The “no such thing” link is a 2012 story; the court has apparently ruled since then). If so, the only thing barring future prosecutions, or at least forced testimony, by reporters is any administration’s grace and favor. (The 4th Circuit case is Risen v. U.S., 11-5028 (U.S. 4th Cir., June 2013), cert. denied US Supreme Court, June 2014). The ruling may be binding only in the 4th Circuit but would be persuasive elsewhere in the Federal system — and it appears to apply to any criminal proceeding.
What the progressive, and globalist, and gun control- and immigration reform- and Equality- and Climate Change-chanting New York Times gets perturbed or something about in its op-ed pp. is any potential opposition to TPP:
_”How to Stop Currency Manipulation“_
“WASHINGTON — IF the new Congress can agree on anything this year, it may well be the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/opinion/jared-bernstein-how-to-stop-currency-manipulation.html
and any opposition to Democrats and co. and their newly militarized BLM:
_”Deadbeat on the Range“_
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/egan-deadbeat-on-the-range.html
(the latter the very first words originating from the leftist,10th-averse NYT about the escalating, month-long Bundy standoff–a full six days after the climactic retreat by BLM and the release of cattle it didn’t destroy)
More on the 4th Circuit reporters’ privilege ruling, which is at
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/sterling-ruling.pdf
Petition was at 13-1009 on the Supreme Court docket, denied June 2, 2014.
Here’s the real damage: it seems that any reporter, on a criminal case, may face a subpoena by any US prosecutor. Sure, they let James Risen off on this one, but the ruling appears to cover any criminal case, which would crimp any reporter’s ability to pursue those stories. Let’s say an enterprising reporter, through his sources among Capitol staffers, finds out that Sen. Pork and Rep. Junket have been putting their mistresses on the payroll, which was, last time I looked, a Federal crime. If it came to light, and Federal prosecutors filed charges (in this administration, probably against the staffers for whistleblowing, not the legislators, but anyway), nothing’s stopping them from forcing the reporter to testify as to sources and parties involved.
Think anybody with a whistle to blow would be inclined to talk to the reporter, now? And as for the reporter, good luck covering any crime story. They’d probably do something less controversial, like a feature about the latest developments on Kim Cardassian’s left buttock.
See? The administration may have let Risen off, but they may have permanently damaged reporters’ immunity everywhere in the Republic just to get at Sterling. They destroyed the village in order to save it. And so it goes.
Thank you for your legal explanations for this and other articles within TI comment sections — those are all helpful and appreciated by non-lawyers like myself.
I think my training gives me a sense of just what we’re losing. The permanent damage to reporters’ testimonial privilege (see elsewhere in this thread) is troubling, as is the secret-evidence bit. Apparently the ODOJ thinks it can cite state-secrecy privilege to suppress evidence — or present it as face-down cards — but blow a permanent hole in journalists’ privilege. We’re regressing to star-chamber court procedure, under the tutelage of our former Constitutional Law lecturer.
To see what Connecticut attempted legislatively in the last two years to dissuade reporters from crime coverage, see:
http://mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html
@ min 36.00
or here: youtube.com/watch?v=IxTafqejV6k
It’s entirely accurate to state that the government of the United States, lead by its current corporate charlatan, Obama, has stopped pretending that it regards our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, as guidelines for the operation of our nation.
We are now fully under the control of group of Plutocrats, with their replacements already chosen and receiving training and instructions on how to continue the charade.
Future elections will be nothing more than weak attempts to try to the maintain the illusion of choice.
We have no choice, none whatsoever, in fact it’s been several decades since such existed in the American government.
What is truly sad is that Obama has mainstreamed war crimes and torture for Democrats–so much so that they are now planning on nominating seasoned war criminal Hillary Clinton as their candidate to be the next President of the United States.
What’s equally sad is that she will get the same media touting that Obama did, which is a case of the “news” media making the profession less journalism, more shilling. It’s easier to do talk-show commentary and horn-tooting rather than go out and do a story like James Risen did — and his type is getting rare.
http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech
It’s sad when such an important case doesn’t get the attention it deserves. A true hero in the eyes of humanity is convicted and all the mainstream media can focus on are deflated footballs, american snipers and the weather. Sad.
I wrote a piece at dailykos.com based on this article. It made the Recommended list so it will be up for a while.
The title I used was “Secrecy as core value of Obama administration: Talk to NYT and you will be destroyed”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/27/1360465/-Secrecy-as-core-value-of-Obama-administration-Talk-to-NYT-and-you-will-be-destroyed
Thanks for writing that and posting it at dkos. I didn’t read any of the comments yet. I hope several of them express an understanding of the weight of the ongoing destruction of the strength and transparency of the press in the United States and elsewhere.
Considering the insane persecution of every whistleblower possible in Obama’s version of “justice for all,” and the intimidation of a supposedly free press, a case could be made someone fears exposure of some treachery far greater than the known warcrimes / profiteering – and that still remains hidden.
Now you’re catching on.
the problem here is not just secrecy but the willingness of US juries to convict more or less anyone indicted by the government. having lived here for a decade or so i am struck by how much this is a society of informers; people are dropping dimes on each other all the time it sometimes seems. people are not just law-abiding, they are law-worshipping. that is an unhealthy attitude conducive to authoritarianism. the prosecutors didn’t need james risen to convict mr sterling because american juries are pre-programmed to believe everything the cops or those in authority tell them. there is a saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich; by the same logic american criminal juries would convict a ham sandwich.
Unless they are accused of murdering a person of color or other minority status.
“people are not just law-abiding, they are law-worshipping.”
Perhaps it’s more fundamental than that. Jurors are generally unaware of the rights afforded them in the constitution (that criminal juries have “the power to judge the law as well as the evidence, and to vote on the verdict according to conscience”), and because of that they are easily intimidated by judges and prosecutors who are typically driven by old world, authoritarian values and have no problem subverting the spirit and letter of the law to promote their world view, and perhaps even their careers. Such was the case with Tim Dechristopher: http://billmoyers.com/segment/why-tim-dechristopher-went-to-prison-for-his-protest/
It’s really about education and the proper values. With some exceptions, key folks within the criminal justice system (police chiefs judges, prosecutors, wardens) and elites within government (state and federal legislatures) subscribe to the same aforementioned authoritarian values, to a greater or lesser degree. Unless enough progressive folks at the grass roots put enough pressure on the system from the ground up, those key folks will continue to hold sway over the system. Given social and population trends, that change is in process now. What we witness within the system would appear to be, in a sense, the death throes of that old order. But that change is measured almost in terms of generations. Each succeeding generation is more progressive minded than the previous. There are not quite enough of us, and we are not yet sufficiently organized, to generate the kind of change that is needed for swift, wholesale change.
The problem with the slowness of change in the US is the danger alluded to in a separate comment about the intelligence/military/surveillance community and the oligarchs that enable it. To that group you might also include rabid nationalists. That danger is very real because the old guard, the aforementioned elites, are afflicted with authoritarianism but also with an over abundance of self-righteous nationalism. They see the enemy around every corner. That behavior has played itself out on the international stage a number of times over the decades. Thus the proxy war now being fought in Ukraine. The end game, which they have not really carefully considered, is a major confrontation with Russia. I assure you, as was demonstrated in Crimea, unlike our average juror, they will not be so easily intimidated.
Adherents of the Fully Informed Jury Association (http://fija.org/) have been working in Manhattan’s courts neighborhood for a few years now, and are the topic of some concern there.
ham. pigs. hmm. Maybe that should be changed to read “convict anything other than a ham sandwich”
” Risen’s testimony was crucial to their case, they said – although evidently it wasn’t. And their argument was that U.S. law recognizes no such thing as reporter’s privilege when a journalist received what the government considers an illegal leak. ”
The above quote implies that the government is in fact making an unofficial re-definition of journalism, whereupon all activities associated with journalism as a profession must consist exclusively of supportive cheerleading of everything the government does and says, or else…
The problem with ‘classified information ‘ is that whilst most classified information genuinely has a national security value, not all classified information is legally classified, and such illegally classified information often fails the national security value test. Such information is classified in violation of the classification directives or rules or laws, purely for purposes of avoiding accountability and for purposes of preventing embarrassment. Such illegally classified activities often include tortures of innocent persons, for example. Torture is not a national asset worthy of a protection under the nation’s secrecy laws.
By and large, journalists have historically recognized and honoured an age-old “hands-off” tradition when it came to genuine national secrets. Journalists are not stupid.
What the community is being ordered to do now is to turn a blind eye even when it uncovers illegal and reprehensible activities with no national security value conducted by the government and illegally classified to shield them from public scrutiny.
This effectively muzzles journalism by unofficially forcing it to embed, that is, being in bed with violators and violations of the law.
When a nation contorts its foundations at the highest levels – the law – it generally morphs into a contorted version of its former self.
Obama, like his predecessors, and probably his successors, works for the intelligence/military/surveillance community to the benefit of the oligarchs not anyone else. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the US citizenry don’t recognize the great danger this generates, much like the vast majority of the German population didn’t in the late 1930’s.
The tragedy of what had once been a great country and is now just a virtual police state generating terror around the globe.
You have your perp walk. And, clearly, you have your perv march. Look at the perverts running the world! Charlie Hebdo is attacked, for things they’ve written, by extremists who have chosen to believe that their god demands it and the same world leaders who are attacking democracy and journalism and free speech everywhere link arms and march to protest that attack!
Sense The Intercept is sitting on the complete Snowden archive and have found nothing in them for months worth reporting on I guess we have to rely on foreign press for such revelations. It’s not nice to keep secrets especially if your a journalist. Why is The Intercept risking its reputation this way?
I clicked on the “declared” link in the fourth paragraph to hear those remarks by the president to his incoming staff. They sounded like one of his vintage campaign speeches–and were just as hollow. I read it. I laughed. The man is good: We bought it twice.
Now, I’m imagining the Director of National Intelligence in 2008, J.Michael McConnell, welcoming Obama to the game. I can see the director putting an arm around the president’s shoulder like he was an old friend and then whispering in his ear, “Here’s how it’s going to be…” Obama’s face then turns white–for a time–and the rest is history.
Speak for yourself, Old Dog: YOU bought it twice.
Even if we grant that an educated person could be so badly hoodwinked once (I don’t), what’s your excuse for 2012?
Elections have consequences, as your great orator noted.
Call me a kook, call Alex Jones a nutcase, call InfoWars whatever you wish. Obama’s indoctrination into CIA came long before he entered politics.
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/
The progressive left thought that authoritarianism and managed communication (including commentariat censorship of the kind found at the Guardian and at theIntercept.com and NYT and Salon.com) would be popular with Americans.
Yeah sure, whatever you say, I mean repeat ad nauseum, and the regressive right is living a Fascist’s wet dream and still whining.
Fascism’s most notorious practitioner edited Italy’s premier socialist newspaper, Avanti! (Forward!).
Awesome! Thanks for the completely meaningless tripe, my regressive little Fascist.
You should seek help. You just can’t help but repeat the same nonsense over and over and over again ad nauseam.
Argued like a true Bolshevik (and Salonik). Yelena Bonner and Andrei Sakharov would recognize your words.
Tut, tut, avelna, I think it’s either a random-phrase generator or maybe code language.
Ah, it’s been rumored (somewhere, I’m sure) Zelda’s actually the world’s most sophisticated AI with access to all databases, though still displaying problems with social references containing multi-cultural nuance, and because intelligence operatives do have this thing for their disguises – TI is in fact one of “her” beta test sites.
Oboe, larchmoth, debbie, bonneville; perhaps the evidence tells the story…
Just making shit up, btw, but then after reading it few times…
I was larchmont. Who’s Oboe? You’re kind of a know nothing.
@bonneville
Lunchmeat, really? Because I would’ve guessed debbie, so perhaps you’re right.
Pretty sure he was also debbie. But not Oboe. Oboe was a Stalinist loon from the left. Bonnie is a far-right space cadet.
My questions about this case are:
If there was not a witness connecting him (since neither he nor Risen testified), how was a jury of his peers able to convict him?
I understand that both the leaker and Risen felt that this was in the national interest to expose, but how was it in the national interest to expose this program to give Iran flawed information? I can look at what Snowden released and say that this was absolutely in the public’s best interest since the government was violating the constitution and the rights of American citizens with these programs. But when I look at the Iran nuclear material story, I don’t see how it benefited the public to expose it.
Ssh! We’re not going to get to figure out if it was in the public’s interest, since the public doesn’t get to see a lot of the evidence. It’s funny that the reporter doesn’t get evidentiary privilege but the government does (states-secret privilege). Secret evidence, testimony from behind screens, lots of unusual presentation of evidence.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1011/Judge_OKs_secret_evidence_for_CIA_leak_trial.html
So we don’t know, and people get prosecuted on secret evidence, and we’re left guessing. Franz Kafka would have understood.
Wait a second now. You cannot decry the government for trying to compel a journalist like Risen to testify and therefore attain direct evidence, then simultaneously cry foul that the government had to rely on too much circumstantial evidence and not enough direct evidence. What is Risen’s testimony would represent the only direct evidence? People cannot have this both ways.
Then it’s good nobody has even implied such a thing.
You braindead fuckwit, coram is alluding to the fact that the jury isn’t allowed to hear one word of evidence that Sterling’s disclosures were in the public interest. The very argument is prohibited.
Mona:
Seeing this made me laugh. Do I really get that far under your skin Mona!? Chill!
No it didn’t.
What I was talking about was the secret evidence, that the defense couldn’t present evidence that would show the defendant’s state of mind, or maybe pose a justification defense. Also, we used to have a system of public trials in this country, where the public could see that a guilty verdict was merited, and not based on evidence hidden from the public or maybe the defense as well. As it turned out, they didn’t need Risen’s testimony to get a guilty verdict, but it still looks like a Court of Star Chamber, and I thought that had gone out with King James II — as a certain lecturer in constitutional law should know.
@coram – Okay, I see what you mean, my apologies.
What time frame do you refer to? Did the U.S. used to have public trials containing classified national security information?
But it would have made life a lot easier for the DOJ if they had. I think Holder played this very smart by not turning Risen into a martyr by tossing him in jail.
Won’t lie, had to google “Court of Star Chamber” so your point probably flew over my head, but Obama is not personally prosecuting this case. If you were a government lawyer, would you not want Risen’s testimony as well? Heck, at this point if Sterling really was innocent, wouldn’t Risen’s lack of testimony be getting the wrong guy thrown in prison!?
Usually they could prove the physical transfer of evidence. Defendant A met Soviet agent Z at a bench at Lafayette Park, or the cash and microfilm was deposited in a pumpkin, something like that. Nearer they get to having to show the content of the secrets, it’s often going to be one-sided for the defendants, the Rosenbergs for instance. Or the Nazi spies who didn’t get a full trial but a 1942 military commission proceeding in Washington — albeit the fact of the trial, and the Attorney-General’s service as the prosecutor, being public record. Certainly the executions weren’t secret.
Sometimes it helps if you let a Risen go — they got the conviction but still destroyed the reporters’ privilege in 4th Circuit court. Sometimes it’s better if you don’t prosecute at all: in 1942, the Chicago Tribune revealed, right after Midway, that the Navy had broken the Japanese naval code. FDR decided not to prosecute the publisher, on the theory that the enemy might have missed the story, but wouldn’t if there was a trial — and the arrest of Colonel McCormick would have been noticed. No trial, and the enemy missed the story, as it turned out.
The grand jury was convinced by the circumstantial evidence. The NYT: The prosecutors depicted “Mr. Sterling, who is black, as bitter and frustrated about what he believed was workplace discrimination. Telephone records and emails showed that Mr. Sterling and Mr. Risen had talked frequently, and prosecutors argued that only Mr. Sterling had the information, the motive and the opportunity to leak it.” Politico says there were records of 47 phone calls between Sterling and Risen and that “Prosecutors also made much of the fact that Risen wrote an article in 2002 about a racial discrimination case the African-American CIA officer filed against the spy agency.” I’ll admit, it’s crazy that you could get convicted of 9 counts based on circumstantial evidence but the jury must have thought it was a strong case. Let’s say Sterling really was not the source. Shouldn’t James Risen be screaming at the top of the lungs that the USG got the wrong guy? It puts Risen in a terrible situation. I glanced at his Twitter and saw nothing and if I remember correctly, Risen has not responded to media inquiries.
Tough to say and that’s the problem with leaks. It is in the eye of the beholder. What you believe is not in the national interest may be different than me. You mention that what Snowden leaked was in the national interest, but I think that’s too broad a statement. Snowden leaked so much information that they need to be assessed individually. Just an easy example, Snowden leaked a classified NSA bulletin called “Ask Zelda” that showed the NSA has an assistant to send inquiries. How did divulging this benefit the public? You’d be hard-pressed to argue its importance. And that’s just a non-substantive example. What about leaking information about U.S. exploits in China? With that said, I am glad we know about information like Prism and the metadata and commend Snowden for leaking that.
Nate: Snowden leaked a classified NSA bulletin called “Ask Zelda” that showed the NSA has an assistant to send inquiries. How did divulging this benefit the public? You’d be hard-pressed to argue its importance.
Not hard-pressed at all, Nate. You seem to have overlooked the delicious irony of the NSA recognizing that surveillance of its employees led to poor morale while being unable to extend that recognition to the US population at large. It was an excellent example of what some would call hypocrisy and others would call blindness. Either way, I think there was much public benefit because part of the scandal rested on whether massive surveillance of a non-offending civilian population would cause more harm than it would prevent. And Zelda seemed to understand that pervasive surveillance might not be compatible with a pleasant environment.
So it wasn’t just “non-substantive” comic relief from the weighty topic of Constitutional violations, Nate. It was like a good comic strip — laughter on the surface with serious content underneath.
tortoise – This is a perfect example of how benefiting the public interest is in the eye of the beholder.
You may believe this was warranted, but I don’t think irony and perceived hypocrisy meet the requirement of publishing classified information under the guise of benefiting the public interest. In contrast, the publishing of the metadata collection program was followed by criticism and Executive reform. After Prism’s publication, there were several reviews and proposed reform from Congress. As for “Ask Zelda,” it does not represent some direct problem that needs correcting. It wasn’t being accused of being illegal or unconstitutional. It hasn’t been described as a massive waste of taxpayer money. Nothing has come of this article so I conclude its release was not justified.
“the prospects are grim.”
Yep.
I think I must agree… And Dan, that last paragraph’s a keeper.
Presidential power corrupts even the greatest of men/women. People as profoundly philosophical and principled as Thomas Jefferson were compelled to act outside of the law again and again while sitting as President. How could the same person who helped author 2 republican revolutions which honored the rights of humankind ever act in the way he did as President? However, over time the precedent of executive action erodes the natural republican order from a republic to one of an aristocratic dictatorship.
Perhaps the most difficult aspects of the role is to act within the boundaries of principle while still avoiding the critical gaze of the American public–who look at executive restraint with unusual disdain–almost as a breach of public trust.
Its time to put curbs on the office itself. We need a more parliamentary system–where an executive can be removed from office without notice.
Sounds like a long way of saying it’s not Obama’s fault.
Go to the back of the room.
We need something.
Did anyone notice how the Republicans in Congress were positively howling “executive overreach” about immigration policy, but hardly ANYONE in that “institution” is howling over executive overreach by the intelligence community,, and that they have not exercised any effective oversight?
Go figure…
“Elite immunity” – justice vs just us
Prosecuting patriots so the elected liars and appointed liars can protect each other is surely in our Constitution somewhere… right?
BLAME OBAMA! :-P