Obama's DoJ: Immunity for domestic spying, prosecution for whistleblowing

Taliesin

Puttin' on the Ritz
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,906
Location
Montréal
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/16indict.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/16/prosecutions/index.html
In a rare legal action against a government employee accused of leaking secrets, a grand jury has indicted a former senior National Security Agency official on charges of providing classified information to a newspaper reporter in hundreds of e-mail messages in 2006 and 2007.

The official, Thomas A. Drake, 52, was also accused of obstructing justice by shredding documents, deleting computer records and lying to investigators who were looking into the reporter’s sources.

“Our national security demands that the sort of conduct alleged here — violating the government’s trust by illegally retaining and disclosing classified information — be prosecuted and prosecuted vigorously,” Lanny A. Breuer, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement.

The indictment, approved Wednesday by a grand jury in Baltimore and made public on Thursday, does not name either the reporter or the newspaper that received the information.

But the description applies to articles written by Siobhan Gorman, then a reporter for The Baltimore Sun, that examined in detail the failings of several major N.S.A. programs, costing billions of dollars, using computers to collect and sort electronic intelligence. The efforts were plagued with technical flaws and cost overruns.

Only a small number of prosecutions have been brought against government officials in recent decades for improperly disclosing information. Such cases often provoke a public debate over the tradeoff between protecting government secrets and covering up government wrongdoing or incompetence.

The indictment suggests the Obama administration may be no less aggressive than the Bush administration in pursuing whistleblowers and reporters’ sources who disclose government secrets. In a little-noticed case last December, a former contract linguist for the F.B.I., Shamai Kedem Leibowitz, pleaded guilty to leaking five classified documents to a blogger.

In the Bush administration, the Justice Department spent several years investigating The New York Times’s sources for a 2005 article that revealed the existence of the N.S.A. program of eavesdropping without warrants. No one has been charged in that case.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a press advocacy group, called the indictment of Mr. Drake unfortunate. “The whole point of the prosecution is to have a chilling effect on reporters and sources, and it will,” Ms. Dalglish said.
Greenwald said:
Under the Obama DOJ's two-tiered justice system (and it's an Obama political appointee, Lanny Breuer, trumpeting the indictment), engaging in serious wrongdoing entitles you to immunity (Look Forward, Not Backward), whereas exposing it to the public merits a lengthy prison term.

It all makes sense when you realise that any whistleblowing or criminal prosecution of the illegal NSA domestic spying would harm the interests of the companies chiefly involved in the NSA domestic spying project, which include Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Priorities, guys? This is what we in the civilised world usually call 'raging corruption.'
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/16indict.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/16/prosecutions/index.html



It all makes sense when you realise that any whistleblowing or criminal prosecution of the illegal NSA domestic spying would harm the interests of the companies chiefly involved in the NSA domestic spying project, which include Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Priorities, guys? This is what we in the civilised world usually call 'raging corruption.'

Can't say I'm all that surprised to be honest.
 
He voted for the telecom immunity bill when he was a Senator. There was no real reason to think that he cared about this in the first place.

Cleo
 
Umm, guys? When you sign on to work for the DOJ, (remember I'm a DOJ economist)you sign a non-disclosure form. I can't talk about what I do in my actual job. That's part of it, because I deal with very sensitive databases.

It's in your employment contract. We do have outside agency protocol if we want to whistleblow
 
Umm, guys? When you sign on to work for the DOJ, (remember I'm a DOJ economist)you sign a non-disclosure form. I can't talk about what I do in my actual job. That's part of it, because I deal with very sensitive databases.

It's in your employment contract. We do have outside agency protocol if we want to whistleblow

And if you were indicted for exposing government wrongdoing in violation of your employment contract, I'd support your defense, too.

Cleo
 
As usual, the real crime is what's legal - and what's not.
 
Dont worry Bush will give him a full pardon.
..... oh wait
 
If this is akin to the Catholic Churches... leaders using their power to cover up wrongdoing... then I am just as critical.
 
Missed my point. There pre-existing guidelines to whistleblowing. You are covered if you whistle and you document a non-response. But if you don't attempt to go through the ombudsman, well...then you aren't so safe.

I've seen nasty leaks done to hurt coworkers (and there was no security or reasonable rationale other than wanting to send out selective edits of supposedly unaltered work) Guidelines are there for a reason.
 
Missed my point. There pre-existing guidelines to whistleblowing. You are covered if you whistle and you document a non-response. But if you don't attempt to go through the ombudsman, well...then you aren't so safe.

I've seen nasty leaks done to hurt coworkers (and there was no security or reasonable rationale other than wanting to send out selective edits of supposedly unaltered work) Guidelines are there for a reason.

No, I understood that. But whether you go through the proper channels or go outside of them, if you reveal government wrongdoing (without causing harm other than that related solely to the revelation of wrongdoing), I'll still be there cheering for your defense. Whether I support a whistleblower's defense is not necessarily related to whether he followed the guidelines in his employment contract. I'm sure Daniel Ellsberg violated internal DoD guidelines, but he's still a hero. In fact, that's why he's a hero.

I don't know what "whistle and you document a non-response" means, however. Maybe that's what I'm missing.

Cleo
 
Top Bottom