Once Again, The Administration Vindictively Charges A Whistleblower As Being A Spy
from the scary-stuff dept
This is getting ridiculous. When President Obama was campaigning and even when he first took office, he claimed that it was a priority to support whistleblowing activities. And yet, as President, he has been ridiculously aggressive in pushing vindictive criminal lawsuits against whistleblowers -- often by abusing the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act is supposed to be used against spies. But the Obama Justice Department has used it over and over again against whistleblowers in a purely vindictive manner. In fact, he's used it to bring charges against whistleblowers more often than every other President combined. This strategy turned out to be a disaster in the Thomas Drake case (which was initiated by President Bush, but continued with strong support by President Obama), where the case completely collapsed, once it became clear that the charges were nothing but a vindictive attack on a whistleblower.Apparently the Obama administration has not learned its lesson. It has now used the Espionage Act to go after a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding torture regime. This now makes it the sixth Espionage Act prosecution of a whistleblower brought by the Obama administration. All other presidents before him used it a total of 3 times. As the Government Accountability Project notes, the really stunning thing in all of this is that Kiriakou will be the only person prosecuted in relation to the use of waterboarding -- and simply for blowing the whistle on it.
if you torture a prisoner, you will not be held criminally liable, but if you blow the whistle on torture, you risk criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.Something seems very, very wrong about this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, espionage act, obama, torture, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
fas·cism (fshzm)
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Anybody want to argue after his statements about Obamacare going before the Supreme Court?
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.
I guess Obama forgot about the Jim Crow laws when he said that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
This is the real story. That both parties are diminishing our freedom and rights with each administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Close Gitmo
No Lobbyists in the WH
Most transparent administration in history
Lies from Govt = Question Authority(regardless of who it is)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Once they are suitably shaken up (could take a few election cycles) they will eventually get it through their heads that serving the people is the only option. At that point, no matter what damage was done in the meantime, they will have to repeal it, because they will be forced to follow through on the petitions they receive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
I guess Obama was thinking about Lochner v. New York, Hammer v. Dagenhart, Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., Adkins v. Children's Hospital, Carter v. Carter Coal Company, or even Dred Scott v. Sandford when he said that quote. All of those decisions overturned acts of Congress, and all of them are looked upon poorly by history. For instance, the case in Hammer v. Dagenhart dealt with an act of Congress that regulated child labor. How dare the federal government think the commerce clause allowed it to limit the age of those employed by private industry! What's next, will Congress think it can tell private industry the minimum wage a private industry can pay its employees?
As an a-side, I hate when people call it Obamacare. Do you think Obama wrote any of that legislation? Of course not, he's the President, not a legislator. Senator Max Baucus (or rather, his aides and lobbyists) wrote the legislation. You should call it "Baucuscare" instead, but I guess that prevents you from exploiting the built-in animosity that surrounds Obama's name.
I have reasons for hating Obama and how he has performed his duties while in office, but this whole Supreme Court "intimidation" non-sense is just Obama Derangement Syndrome. There was a big stink about the "unelected" judges, when that wording was the province of *conservatives*, including Justice Antonin Scalia himself!
Justice Antonin Scalia: Value-laden decisions such as that should be made by an entire society … not by nine unelected judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Seriously, Obama needs to fight the Republicans instead of hiding in a corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
There are much better reasons to criticize American leadership than Obama advocating for universal healthcare. Picking this issue over the other more obvious choices says more about you than the Obama administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
When we move to Nat Gas, you can ship it off to the commies to fund your healthcare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
If you have those qualities you can get a MUCH better job than a politician, likely from the same company that heavily lobbies politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
We must End This Corrupted Way of Washington.
Washington Politics You Truly ROT !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Advocate alternative voting system
Public financing of campaigns
Proportional voting
Eliminate disenfranchisement of the vote and gerrymandering.
Instill a Mixed Member Proportional System
Just a few ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overuse = Less Believable
ridiculous
Synonyms: absurd, antic, bizarre, comic, comical, contemptible, daffy, derisory, droll, fantastic, farcical, foolheaded, foolish, gelastic, goofy*, grotesque, harebrained, hilarious, impossible, incredible, jerky, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, nutty, outrageous, preposterous, risible, sappy*, silly, slaphappy, unbelievable, wacky*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overuse = Less Believable
Comment and contribute. Don't just criticize. This blog is about discussion. Even if it does not lean in your way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
I have been reading, and commenting, on this blog for a long enough time to actually feel some embarrassment for the overuse of this word, hence, the suggestion.
Embarrassment because I actually like his writing, most of the time, and I definitely like the subject matter, most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/06223116619/anonymous-commenters-cowards-contr ibutors.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
FWIW, I don't *always* take AC comments as shills. Maybe you do. And the AC did in fact contribute; note the list of synonyms. Methinks you have Anonymous Coward Derangement Syndrome....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
The AC trolls modus operandi goes like this: "attack credibility first, never address valid points for discussion."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
When someone says something you disagree with you shouldn't dogpile the person and use straw man arguments to attack the person's comment. But that is the norm here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
2) The dog pile effect you refer to is simply individual commentators expressing their personal arguments or counter-examples. It is not a deliberate strategy. Thus the pejorative you are looking for is anarchy, or more accurately, mob rule. It is not fascism, which would require Masnick to deliberately incite the effect.
3) The blog may be about fascism, but it does not appear to be run in anything resembling a fascist manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
I think ridiculous pretty adequately describes this, though. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
I would further recommend pursuing some method of expanding your vocabulary such that you need not reach for either resource. After all, a full understanding of the various shadings of meaning that are available to you will cause your writing to improve by far greater margins than a few simple gimmicks and rules can provide.
After all, repetition, used sparingly, can actually serve as a rather useful device for subtly highlighting the redundant word or argument. Once called out, a phrase can be wielded to generate a much greater impact.
Does this post meet your standards? (No reference materials were utilized.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overuse = Less Believable
"Here's your proof... Just assemble the words yourself."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overuse = Less Believable
Your comment is just ridiculous.
Whats even funnier is that you had to copy and paste the synonyms. LOL
http://thesaurus.com/browse/ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
No, no you don't. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overuse = Less Believable
http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm
I guess you have not mastered Command/power shell scripting.
Kind of silly not knowing your professional background huh. Would be even dumber for me to try and embarrass you on that huh?
Still funny you had to copy and paste. Next time take out the * so it does not give you away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Part III: Captivity
Only terrorists and rouge nations dont follow these basic human protections.
Which are we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny misspelling, given the context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
Instead, he's decided to try to one-up Bush in every insane thing the man ever did . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
I'd rather vote for Ron Paul and lose than vote for a crony corporatist from either party and win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama is one of them.
vote(best);
To anyone who knows code, the problem with the system should be very obvious from the above snippet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before that case, and the big effort to investigate and prosecute leaks, the Espionage Act was a dead letter, at least when it came to leaking to reporters. The DoJ would make some noises, but give up and say leaks were too hard to stop.
The CIA always wanted to revive leak prosecutions, though. Then they found a case where they could get Democrats and liberals excited over prosecuting leaks because it was against Republicans. And now the new precedent has been set, and the Espionage Act is reinvigorated.
The other mistake, of course, is thinking that any President would actually want to decrease the power of the Executive Branch. They just want that power "in the right hands," i.e., their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Call me naive, but I believe Ron Paul would. The again, I believed Obama would be more transparent, like he said, so what the hell do I know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ron Paul . . . I at least have cautious optimism about, with regards to his actual intentions vs. what he claims. I don't particularly support him, but I do despise him less than most other candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soooo...how's that whole hopey, changey thing working out for ya?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe it's just me, but when I read your comment I heard it in the voice of Sarah Palin (or maybe it was Tina Fey who does a better Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin - not sure).
How was that Today Show gig, Sarah? Bryant Gumbel wasn't impressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) sign petitions (ones you would sign anyways), not in the hopes they will work, but to test who is willing to listen to the people.
2) vote out those who don't listen.
3) make it very obvious what you are doing and encourage others to help you.
4) once the politicians are suitably terrified of defying the people, sign more petitions to effect actual changes.
5) patch the Constitution to provide for the forcing of review and either termination or renewal of old laws and provide meaningful disincentives for passing unconstitutional laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the choice is between a big government republican that wants to erode our civil rights and turn entire US economy into a pump and dump scam to benefit a few very rich people or a big government democrat that just wants to erode our civil rights, I'll take the democrat every time. However, I'll be gnashing my teeth and begging for a better choice all the way to the ballot box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And didnt Mr. Barry Sorento promise to revert those programs?
Its like comparing testicular cancer to lung cancer.
pump and dump scam? Bailout ring a bell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you should feel bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I'm offending hyper partisans, such as yourself, who cannot admit to themselves that neither president was great then I can sleep easily tonight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
traitor
I have no problem with him being prosecuted for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: traitor
However, if the names came out as part of blowing the whistle, and the administration is using those charges in retaliation, then I do have a problem with him being prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Obama...
Even Bush wasn't THIS bad.
Hard to believe I thought he might actually change some thing. Sadly... I hadn't considered that he would change things for the WORSE.
Always ask when a politician screams CHANGE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Obama...
[Soda pours from nose and mouth]
Really? Were you guys under a rock for 8 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Obama...
Look, I hate Obama as much as the next guy, but at least try to be reasonable with your arguments. Obama is pretty clearly a center-leaning-right kinda guy if you look at his policies and "achievements" (aside from a couple bones like repealing DADT, itself a policy of a Democratic administration)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Obama...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Obama...
every time i see someone claiming anyone in the US government system that actually has ANY power is a communist i wish they were in range so i could kick them in the face.
repeatedly.
the entire mainstream US political spectrum is right-shifted.
so far as i can tell, most of the world that gives a damn would rate Obama and his buddies as problematically RIGHT leaning. (or, more specifically, corporate interest leaning. possibly Fascist.) .... or at least centered.
anyone claiming the major players in US politics are even Approaching communist simply shows their own ignorance and idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, at least the Espionage Act is now being used against an actual spy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to understand the proper definition of "whistleblower". When it's someone exposing corruption in a country or company that the US doesn't like, it's whistleblowing. When it's someone exposing corruption in the US government, it's espionage.
See, his position makes perfect sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the definitions of the crime of espionage is transmitting secrets of the United States to its enemies.
Think about those two statements for a moment.
Is the Obama administration truly asserting that informing the American people of what the government is covertly doing in all our names, an act of giving secrets to the enemy?
And if Obama and his cronies are the undeclared enemy of the American people, isn't that rather close to treason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
with those definitions there's nothing 'rather close' about it.
unless you count occupying the same location in space-time down to the smallest measurable unit as 'close'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, the strategy is not crazy
While it's not necessarily clear this has been their strategy, we have some evidence. One, they would be taking a surprising about face and being rather out of character and extreme (6 now vs 3 prior all time, say). Two, the prosecution has been incompetent over and over and the cases have frequently been weak. Three, attacking troops or the military system during war is bad for morale and for Obama. Sabotage/mutiny/etc is also a concern throughout various parts of governments. Obama already has to deal with balancing act with foreign nations and prosecution of some soldiers. I think I saw discussion of a Manning mistrial as well as for some other cases. Four, this approach by prosecutors would be consistent with other policy areas where the ugly unpopular happened first and the popular has been increasing as election time approaches and perhaps also as the political enemies have adopted a position that can be accepted much more easily by the administration or else went way off the deep end doubling down. Five, they have claimed to have enough powers with current law even if they don't. While this can be seen as negative, it does also help reduce pressure on Congress to avoid passing more draconian laws. There has been success in this area, I think.
I admit this can be argued differently (either as pure incompetence and/or ill-will towards citizens and whistleblowers), and I am very short on specifics and may have misread things. Assuming anyone reads this, I would like to hear the other side of the coin and also support for this view if any. Even if this comment were flawed in various ways, I think it has some truth to it.
Also, there is justification for most of these actions. Many people do fear whistle-blowing effects on morale and order, for example. It's always debatable how much might be subterfuge or politics by the administration and how much is incompetence (as many might want to believe).
Finally, remember that we are in a different era than in times past. Internet power is relatively new. Wikileaks.. what was that 100, 50, 20 or even 10 years back? It's also post 9/11, a moment when our capital was attacked and our defenses penetrated in ways many would not have believed possible and dangerously close to home to those who work in DC. Computers are way advanced compared to even 10 years ago. Etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]