Government Protects Criminals by Attacking Whistleblowers
Government Protects Criminals by Attacking Whistleblowers
Government Prosecutes and Harasses those Who Expose Criminal Wrongdoing
Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each prosecuted financial crime more aggressively than Barack Obama.
National security claims are also used to keep financial fraud secret (and people who protest runaway criminality by the big banks are targeted as terrorists). And when those in the private sector blow the whistle on potential crimes, they are targeted also.
But it‚Äôs not like the government isn‚Äôt aggressively using the legal system ‚Ä¶ it‚Äôs just using it to silence the truth.
Specifically, the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.
Indeed, even high-level government employees are in danger.
For example, after the head of the NSA‚Äôs spying program ‚Äď William Binney ‚Äď disclosed the fact that the U.S. was spying on everyone in the U.S. and storing the data forever, and that the U.S. was quickly becoming a totalitarian state, the Feds tried to scare him into shutting up:
[Numerous] FBI officers held a gun to Binney‚Äôs head as he stepped naked from the shower. He watched with his wife and youngest son as the FBI ransacked their home. Later Binney was separated from the rest of his family, and FBI officials pressured him to implicate one of the other complainants in criminal activity. During the raid, Binney attempted to report to FBI officials the crimes he had witnessed at NSA, in particular the NSA‚Äôs violation of the constitutional rights of all Americans. However, the FBI wasn‚Äôt interested in these disclosures. Instead, FBI officials seized Binney‚Äôs private computer, which to this day has not been returned despite the fact that he has not been charged with a crime.
Other NSA whistleblowers have also been subjected to armed raids and criminal prosecution.
After high-level CIA officer John Kiriakou blew the whistle on illegal CIA torture, the government prosecuted him for espionage.
Even the CIA director was targeted with extra-constitutional spying and driven out of office.
In reality, the government is spying on Americans to crack down on dissent ‚Ä¶ not to keep us safe.
And the top interrogation experts from U.S. military and intelligence services say that all torture is lousy at producing actionable intelligence, and the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions in order to create a false justification for the Iraq war. Indeed, torture doesn‚Äôt prevent terrorism but rather creates new terrorists.
And the ‚Äúbad guys‚ÄĚ knew about torture long before Kiriakou blew the whistle. As a top U.S. air force interrogator notes:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
As such, it is clear that the point of prosecuting whistleblowers is to protect those in power, not protect our country ‚Ä¶
As former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald notes:
The permanent US national security state has used extreme secrecy to shield its actions from democratic accountability ever since its creation after World War II. But those secrecy powers were dramatically escalated in the name of 9/11 and the War on Terror, such that most of what the US government now does of any significance is completely hidden from public knowledge. Two recent events ‚Äď the sentencing last week of CIA torture whistleblower John Kirikaou to 30 months in prison and the invasive investigation to find the New York Times‚Äô source for its reporting on the US role in launching cyberwarfare at Iran ‚Äď demonstrate how devoted the Obama administration is not only to maintaining, but increasing, these secrecy powers.
When WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables in 2010, government defenders were quick to insist that most of those documents were banal and uninteresting. And that‚Äôs true: most (though by no means all) of those cables contained nothing of significance. That, by itself, should have been a scandal. All of those documents were designated as ‚Äúsecret‚ÄĚ, making it a crime for government officials to reveal their contents ‚Äď despite how insignificant most of it was. That revealed how the US government reflexively ‚Äď really automatically ‚Äď hides anything and everything it does behind this wall of secrecy: they have made it a felony to reveal even the most inconsequential and pedestrian information about its actions.
This is why whistleblowing ‚Äď or, if you prefer, unauthorized leaks of classified information ‚Äď has become so vital to preserving any residual amounts of transparency. Given how subservient the federal judiciary is to government secrecy claims, it is not hyperbole to describe unauthorized leaks as the only real avenue remaining for learning about what the US government does ‚Äď particularly for discovering the bad acts it commits. That is why the Obama administration is waging an unprecedented war against it ‚Äď a war that continually escalates ‚Äď and it is why it is so threatening.
To understand the Obama White House‚Äôs obsession with punishing leaks ‚Äď as evidenced by its historically unprecedented war on whistleblowers ‚Äď just consider how virtually every significant revelation of the bad acts of the US government over the last decade came from this process. Unauthorized leaks are how we learned about the Bush administration‚Äôs use of torture, the NSA‚Äôs illegal eavesdropping on Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the secret network of CIA ‚Äúblack sites‚ÄĚ beyond the reach of law or human rights monitoring, the targeting by Obama of a US citizen for assassination without due process, the re-definition of ‚Äúmilitant‚ÄĚ to mean ‚Äúany military age male in a strike zone‚ÄĚ, the video of a US Apache helicopter gunning down journalists and rescuers in Baghdad, the vastly under-counted civilians deaths caused by the war in Iraq, and the Obama administration‚Äôs campaign to pressure Germany and Spain to cease criminal investigations of the US torture regime.
In light of this, it should not be difficult to understand why the Obama administration is so fixated on intimidating whistleblowers and going far beyond any prior administration ‚Äď including those of the secrecy-obsessed Richard Nixon and George W Bush ‚Äď to plug all leaks. It‚Äôs because those methods are the only ones preventing the US government from doing whatever it wants in complete secrecy and without any accountability of any kind.
Silencing government sources is the key to disabling investigative journalism and a free press. That is why the New Yorker‚Äôs Jane Mayer told whistleblowing advocate Jesselyn Radack last April: ‚Äúwhen our sources are prosecuted, the news-gathering process is criminalized, so it‚Äôs incumbent upon all journalists to speak up.‚ÄĚ
Indeed, if you talk to leading investigative journalists they will tell you that the Obama war on whistleblowers has succeeded in intimidating not only journalists‚Äô sources but also investigative journalists themselves. Just look at the way the DOJ has pursued and threatened with prison one of the most accomplished and institutionally protected investigative journalists in the country ‚Äď James Risen ‚Äď and it‚Äôs easy to see why the small amount of real journalism done in the US, most driven by unauthorized leaks, is being severely impeded. This morning‚Äôs Washington Post article on the DOJ‚Äôs email snooping to find the NYT‚Äôs Stuxnet source included this anonymous quote: ‚ÄúPeople are feeling less open to talking to reporters given this uptick. There is a definite chilling effect in government due to these investigations.‚ÄĚ
For authoritarians who view assertions of government power as inherently valid and government claims as inherently true, none of this will be bothersome. Under that mentality, if the government decrees that something shall be secret, then it should be secret, and anyone who defies that dictate should be punished as a felon ‚Äď or even a traitor. That view is typically accompanied by the belief that we can and should trust our leaders to be good and do good even if they exercise power in the dark, so that transparency is not only unnecessary but undesirable.
But the most basic precepts of human nature, political science, and the American founding teach that power exercised in the dark will be inevitably abused. Secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power. That‚Äôs why those who wield political power are always driven to destroy methods of transparency. About this fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1804 letter to John Tyler [emphasis added]:
‚ÄúOur first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.‚ÄĚ
About all that, Yale law professor David A Schultz observed: ‚ÄúFor Jefferson, a free press was the tool of public criticism. It held public officials accountable, opening them up to the judgment of people who could decide whether the government was doing good or whether it had anything to hide. . . . A democratic and free society is dependent upon the media to inform.‚ÄĚ
There should be no doubt that destroying this method of transparency ‚Äď not protection of legitimate national security secrets- is the primary effect, and almost certainly the intent, of this unprecedented war on whistleblowers. Just consider the revelations that have prompted the Obama DOJ‚Äôs war on whistleblowers, whereby those who leak are not merely being prosecuted, but threatened with decades or even life in prison for ‚Äúespionage‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúaiding the enemy‚ÄĚ.
Does anyone believe it would be better if we remained ignorant about the massive waste, corruption and illegality plaguing the NSA‚Äôs secret domestic eavesdropping program (Thomas Drake); or the dangerously inept CIA effort to infiltrate the Iranian nuclear program but which ended up assisting that program (Jeffrey Sterling); or the overlooking of torture squads in Iraq, the gunning down of journalists and rescuers in Baghdad, or the pressure campaign to stop torture investigations in Spain and Germany (Bradley Manning); or the decision by Obama to wage cyberwar on Iran, which the Pentagon itself considers an act of war (current DOJ investigation)?
Like all of the Obama leak prosecutions ‚Äď see here - none of those revelations resulted in any tangible harm, yet all revealed vital information about what our government was doing in secret. As long-time DC lawyer Abbe Lowell, who represents indicted whistleblower Stephen Kim, put it: what makes the Obama DOJ‚Äôs prosecutions historically unique is that they ‚Äúdon‚Äôt distinguish between bad people ‚Äď people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money ‚Äď and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions‚ÄĚ. Not only doesn‚Äôt it draw this distinction, but it is focused almost entirely on those who leak in order to expose wrongdoing and bring about transparency and accountability.
That is the primary impact of all of this. A Bloomberg report last October on this intimidation campaign summarized the objections this way: ‚Äúthe president‚Äôs crackdown chills dissent, curtails a free press and betrays Obama‚Äôs initial promise to ‚Äėusher in a new era of open government.‚Äô‚ÄĚ
The Obama administration does not dislike leaks of classified information. To the contrary, it is a prolific exploiter of exactly those types of leaks ‚Äď when they can be used to propagandize the citizenry to glorify the president‚Äôs image as a tough guy, advance his political goals or produce a multi-million-dollar Hollywood film about his greatest conquest. Leaks are only objectionable when they undercut that propaganda by exposing government deceit, corruption and illegality.
As FAIR put it this week, whatever else is true: ‚ÄúThe only person to do time for the CIA‚Äôs torture policies appears to be a guy who spoke publicly about them, not any of the people who did the actual torturing.‚ÄĚ
Despite zero evidence of any harm from his disclosures, the federal judge presiding over his case ‚Äď the reliably government-subservient US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ‚Äď said she ‚Äúwould have given Kiriakou much more time if she could.‚ÄĚ As usual, the only real criminals in the government are those who expose or condemn its wrongdoing.
Exactly the same happened with revelations by the New York Times of the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. None of the officials who eavesdropped on Americans without the warrants required by law were prosecuted. The telecoms that illegally cooperated were retroactively immunized from all legal accountability by the US Congress. The only person to suffer recriminations from that scandal was Thomas Tamm, the mid-level DOJ official who discovered the program and told the New York Times about it, and then had his life ruined with vindictive investigations.
This Obama whistleblower war has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with punishing those who harm the country with espionage or treason.
It has everything to do with destroying those who expose high-level government wrongdoing. It is particularly devoted to preserving the government‚Äôs ability to abuse its power in secret by intimidating and deterring future acts of whistleblowing and impeding investigative journalism. This Obama whistleblower war continues to escalate because it triggers no objections from Republicans (who always adore government secrecy) or Democrats (who always adore what Obama does), but most of all because it triggers so few objections from media outlets, which ‚Äď at least in theory ‚Äď suffer the most from what is being done.