"Last Wednesday in the White House briefing room, the administrations press secretary, Jay Carney, opened on a somber note, citing the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, two reporters who had died in order to bring truth while reporting in Syria. Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News, pointed out that the administration had lauded brave reporting in distant lands more than once and then asked, How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistle-blowers to court? He then suggested that the administration seemed to believe that the truth should come out abroad; it shouldnt come out here. Fair point. The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers, has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers. The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office. Setting aside the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of stealing thousands of secret documents, the majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security. In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the peoples right to know is viewed as superseding the governments right to hide its business. In the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democratic staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agencys interrogation program, which included waterboarding. For those of you keeping score, none of the individuals who engaged in or authorized the waterboarding of terror suspects have been prosecuted, but Mr. Kiriakou is in federal cross hairs, accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times. Mr. Tapper said that he had not planned on raising the issue, but hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention. I have been following all of these case, and its not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites, Mr. Tapper said. These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America. Mr. Carney said in the briefing that he felt it was appropriate to honor and praise the bravery of Ms. Colvin and Mr. Shadid, but he did not really engage Mr. Tappers broader question, saying he could not go into information about specific cases. He did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. In one of the more remarkable examples of the administrations aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison. His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would. (He turned out to be right, by the way.) He was charged with 10 felony counts that accused him of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. Last summer, the case against him collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, of misuse of a government computer. Jesselyn Radack, the director for national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, was one of the lawyers who represented him. The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability, she said. All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law. Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this month that he was sort of shocked by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. We would have gotten hammered for it, he said. As Mr. Liptak pointed out, it has become easier to ferret out leakers in a digital age, but just because it can be done doesnt mean it should be. These kinds of prosecutions can have ripples well beyond the immediate proceedings. Two reporters in Washington who work on national security issues said that the rulings had created a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies. During a point in history when our government has been accused of sending prisoners to secret locations where they were said to have been tortured and the C.I.A. is conducting remote-controlled wars in far-flung places, its not a good time to treat the people who aid in the publication of critical information as spies. And its worth pointing out that the administrations emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the secret operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission. There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/b...ases-media-equation.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper Hmmmmmmmm............ ain't Chicago politics reeeeeeel neeeeeeet stuff????
Russians caught tryin' to steal our top secret technology... Eight held in US over 'Russian hi-tech smuggling plot' 4 October 2012 - Boxes of files were removed from Mr Fishenko's company in Houston See also: Russian ring busted for alleged U.S. military export scheme October 3rd, 2012 - The United States has charged 11 people with illegally exporting U.S. microelectronics to Russia for use by the military and intelligence agencies.
More then any other stories, the ones on the 3 NSA whistle blowers, and what is actually going on with Manning and Assange, has to be the most scary facts I have ever seen in my lifetime. I think you have to be a fool to not see the all out assault on free information. No tinfoil hat needed to see this, it is documented in MSM stories!
Manning isn't a whistleblower, he committed espionage. He broke both the law and the confidentiality agreement that he signed.
OK, that's fine. So throw in him in jail for 5 years, as that is what his crime deserves considering there is a DoD report that says the release of the information caused no harm to the US or it's interests. Meanwhile, in reality they have had him in solitary confinement for over two years already, and the US government is breaking law after law attempting to put pressure on Manning, to get him to testify against Assange, so that for the first time in the history of the US, freedom of press is going to be trumped in a legal decision by the mere claim of states secrets. BTW, its weird that you don't have more of a problem with the US government hiding the slaying of civilians, and yet hold a grudge against Manning for exposing the truth!
So, if you signed an agreement with someone not to repeat what they were doing and then found out it was child pornography, for example, you would say nothing?
Actually he could get up to 10 years, although that's unlikely. As far as the solitary confinement goes, do you think he should be released into the general population of a military prison? Would Manning want that? I doubt it. As for Assange, I've not heard the government is leaning on Manning to get to Assange. Although Manning is clearly a criminal, I don't see how Assange did. Manning violated his oath, and the law in releasing classified information. But I don't see how that applies to Assange.
Do you actually think that comparison makes sense? This is a signed agreement with criminal penalties, not a pinky swear to hide someone else's criminality.
I am trying to asses your level of certainty in the ethics of non-disclosure. You seem to be implying, and I hope that I am wrong, that if we see something happening that is wrong or unethical and can affect lives we should be quiet if there is non-disclosure; that secrecy and the maintaining of it is more important than telling the truth and/or shedding circumspection on something that is wrong. I used an extreme example, sure, but it remains a true comparison that you seem unwilling to answer. My point is to ascertain where the line is drawn with you. How egregious does an activity have to be before you can violate an NDA in your eyes?
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...olling-stone-interview-20120118#ixzz28NSvaus4 Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...olling-stone-interview-20120118#ixzz28NTLJzGF Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...olling-stone-interview-20120118#ixzz28NTUmtGl
Well... I've had years of being covered by one, and I never, not once, saw anything that was either unethical or criminal, so I've had ample opportunity to put your hypothetical to the test and the situation has never come up. But let's say it did. Then it would have to be something worth throwing your life away, which Manning effectively did. I'd love to know whether he thinks it was worth it, or if he facepalms himself every day for being a lunk head and ruining his life.
I have to keep my cakehole shut every day pretty much because of my job, so this is no offense to you. I want perspective, actually. I am bound by an oath that I took. To avoid these conflicts I always tell my clients NOT to tell me anything other than what I specifically ask them. The truth is...I don't know what I would do and so I avoid being in that position. I would like to believe that should I have something in front of me that violates my ethics that I would throw away my career, and therefore when I see people doing so...I have a lot of respect for them that they would make that choice --a leak or otherwise.
I see your point, but there is a great deal of effort, time, and money, to keep secret things secret. Trust is vitally important in that sort of situation and Manning betrayed everyone he ever served with in doing what he did. And betraying his country of course.
So what about the people who decided to classify that tape? Are they traitors to their country as well? BTW, to quote a little Harry Potter here, I think Manning chose to do what was right, over what was easy!
I'm pretty sure all Apache gun sight videos of live action are probably classified to begin with. So I don't think there was a guy sitting around who made the decision to classify it after the fact. By what logic would they have been traitors anyway? I think you are vastly overestimating Manning. I think he was just trying to get back at Big Army.
I think you should read up on him. He knew he was going to go down when he released the info. He basically martyred himself to tell the truth, not sure what you base the idea he had a vendetta against the army on?
I was just speculating on his motives. How are you not? He has not exactly been granting interviews since his arrest.
His lawyers, and advocates have. His best friend from growing up is a gifted speaker, and I saw him interviewed on the Dylan Ratigan show on multiple occasions.
