Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

... Either the whistleblowers and journalists are now the worst in modern history or Obama and Holder are extremists in targeting them. Which do you think it is and if the latter are you okay with it?

Well, the question is a bit overbroad, I'd say, and framed in an either/or form not consistent with real life, but I'll give it a go. According to NYT writer Emily Bazelon, writing in Slate, Obama is conducting a "war on journalists" and "... leak investigations are outrageous and unprecedented." And it appears that Holder may agree with her. "We have tried more leak cases—brought more leak cases during the course of this administration than any other administration,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year."

So how many cases, exactly? That would be six, two of which are leftovers from the previous administration. Sounds like a lot considering there was one successful federal leak prosecution between 1917 and 1985. But it's still just six, and just four initiated by Holder's Henchmen. Two other NYT writers say that "...while the Justice Department used to be “where leak complaints from the intelligence agencies went to die,” now they are being kept alive." And apparently they find that to be a bad thing.

I would not support harassment of people guilty of nothing. I do support the Justice Department doing its job to try not to let unlawful leaking go un-challenged. So you're probably more familiar with these cases than I - which of the six do you think represents a "war on journalists" or is "outrageous," and which, if any, do you think are reasonable cases?

[O Really]

She makes the case better than I could, why ask me?

Obama’s War on Journalists
His administration’s leak investigations are outrageous and unprecedented.

I'm sorry - I could only find comments on the Drake and Risen case in that article - the ones started by Bush's henchmen, not Holder's henchmen. I'll see if I can find the other four.

I see selection of a reaction to whistleblowing falls along a spectrum. Let's take one end and say Det. Thorn discovers that Soylent Green is people, and blows the whistle, assisted by the National Enquirer. Seems to be a pretty clear case of illegality and demonstrable harm to the public. Let's take the other end and say some security analyst discovers when and where the Seals are going to raid Bin Laden and tells the Enquirer, who publishes it. Bin Laden gets away; Seals get ambused.

Between those two extremes lies a lot of gray.

[O Really]

Here's a brief summary of the six from the Defense standpoint...
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/0 ... lower.html

[O Really]

[quote="Vrede"]I don't think that Dana Liebelson's article can accurately be called "from the Defense standpoint".
/quote]


On first blush it might appear the big problem here is the use of the 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute acts that weren't intended to be covered. Sort of like stretching RICO, or PATRIOT, not that PATRIOT has to be stretched much to be awful. Except that what was the original 1917 version has been amended numerous times, sometimes with the amendments being later repealed. But it's' still pretty broad, and Congressional attempts to change it haven't been to make it less stringent but to increase penalties. Here's the part applicable to classified information:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

So - you've got a law on the books that has numerous times tested for Constitutionality (sometimes losing, but current version winning), and you've got people who intentionally steal, keep, or otherwise liberate classified information and give it to other people who - knowing it was classified - publish it. Is the proper role of the Justice Department to say, "oh well." Apparently many thought so over the years, since Justice did very little.

[O Really]

The article looks to me to be more from the standpoint of opposing the crackdown and its selectivity in general.

What gets classified is also a big problem.
"...is business as usual in DC and has been for a long time. .

You do know you're quoting or paraphrasing a comment from one of the defendant's attorneys, right? That has been picked up and re-quoted by various writers. And we all know defense attorneys are always accurate in their characterizations of what their clients did.

[O Really]

Actually, I'm paraphrasing what Glenn Greenwald says about the matter, something I've referred to 3 times. He cites several examples in his book, hilariously including one journalist that attacked him while claiming that some high level military source told him _______.

Do you disagree that classified "leaks" have been used for a long time to advance whichever administration's agenda, continue to be used that way, and have been tolerated when they support or don't stray too far from the official line?

Yes but Greenwald got it from Lowell... "Abbe D. Lowell, a lawyer for Mr. Kim, denounced the charges as an attempt to criminalize “the type of government-media exchanges that happen hundreds of times a day in Washington.”'

Have prosecution over leaks been used politically? Probably, maybe even undoubtedly so. Bad on them. But they shouldn't have leaked and made themselves vulnerable to abuse of power. And no, that's not "blaming the victim." If you play, to assume the risks.

[O Really]

Yes but Greenwald got it from Lowell...

Huh? Greenwald has his own experience and expertise to draw from. He's been writing about the national security state since well before Snowden contacted him.

Whatever. You wouldn't believe how often I've heard "everybody I know does it..." As recently as yesterday, a nursery (plant) owner insisted that his interpretation of the "agricultural exemption" for overtime was right and mine was wrong because everybody else does it. So maybe they do. And they're wrong and if they're caught, they'll be in for back pay for three years, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorney fees. But "everybody does it" is somehow a magic invisible cloak.

[O Really]

You aren't really doubting that it's been the norm, are you?

This administration is still leaking, like all administrations before it, but it's now extreme in pursuing selective investigations and prosecutions when the leaks are embarrassing. Most or all of the examples are about government doing nefarious stuff that we should know about. When that's the case, from Nixon to Obama and Elsberg to Snowden, citizens will step up.

Being "the norm" doesn't make it right, though, does it?
Let me clarify my position a little. The reason I find myself on part of the other side from you on this issue is solely related to intelligence/security issues. I could give a ratzass if Johnny Disgrunt tells WaPo that somebody's budget was overrun and the budget director happens to have a new vacation home and boat. If he turns up and reports illegal activity, yay

But intelligence and diplomatic activities don't and never have been totally public nor totally truthful. Of course the US gathers intelligence from Israel, but the nature of the knowledge of that fact changes when it becomes proven in public. Back in the day, "analysts" could see that Israel might send 6 helicopters over to harass the Jordanians. Jordan might shoot down two of them. They'd claim they shot down four; Israel would claim they didn't lose any because they weren't there. You think Merkel didn't know the US was collecting information? But she was insulted and embarrassed, and citizens were outraged. Back in the day, my "super secret" group got holiday greetings from a Soviet ummmm, "fishing boat" off the coast. And we didn't even have much of a Soviet mission. Minor and inconsequential stories, but the point is that everyone understands they work in a world where truth is rare and relative and where perception is reality. To screw up international relationships, out undercover people, disrupt security operations, yada because you don't agree with how a law is interpreted or applied is egregious. And if doing so also happens itself to be a violation of the law, I've got no problem with prosecution.

[Boatrocker]

. . . And, revealing that [INSERT IMPROPER/ILLEGAL GOV'T BEHAVIOR HERE] does not harm our national security, it's just embarrassing for[INSERT GUILTY PARTY HERE].

Whistle blower protection should be extended to anyone exposing misdeeds of government. We have no effective oversight.

[O Really]

Whistle blower protection should be extended to anyone exposing misdeeds of government. We have no effective oversight.

That's a very good statement, and one difficult for anyone to argue against. Unless, of course, one wants a more detailed definition of "misdeeds."

[O Really]

For example, I was just subjected to the ridiculous ad against Nikki Heat in South Carolina claiming she took a state plane to a campaign event and "wrecked" a state car and didn't tell the public. Look, I'm no fan of Nikki Heat, although she's not done as much harm as our own Governor Puppet, but c'mon. If the worst they can come up with is having a fender bender and not alerting the media....she must be doing a decent job. But that's what some apparently would consider "misdeeds." Tillis is running ads making it sound like a criminal offense to miss a committee meeting. Seriously? Budget overruns? I'm sure there is the usual parade of horribles, but there's never been a private industry construction company that hasn't had them. It's not usually criminal. If someone blows the whistle on real illegality, I'll stand behind them. If they're just mad because things aren't going their way....not so much.

[O Really]

If the described massive NSA waste isn't illegal it should be - $1.2 billion on a contract that was ineffective, when it could have done it in-house for $3 million.
Israel and America's aggressive plots against Iran are illegal under international law.
Israel's alleged lobbying activities may have been illegal.
Torture is illegal under US and international law.
Shrub's 4th Amendment-trashing snooping was illegal until they changed the law.

Will you stand behind them?

Well, those are interesting summaries. Responding only to those statements, without remarking in any way as to the underlying facts, I would stand behind the report of torture, and illegal 4th Amendment violations. "May have been illegal" doesn't cut it for my support, and I'm pretty sure Iran doesn't give much of a tinker's dam about international law.

I don't know, and haven't seen any evidence to show that the $1.2 billion contract could have been done in-house for $3 mill. Maybe so, maybe not. But that sounds like political disgruntlement more than whistle-blowing to me.

[O Really]

The summaries are from your link or the links it provides. Your "interesting" snark is unwarranted.
Wasn't intended as a snark. But the statements beg a conclusion not necessarily supported by presented fact.

..."May have been illegal" doesn't cut it for my support,

We can't determine one way or the other if it's secret, and neither can most whistleblowers. The best they can do is whistleblow if they believe in good faith that the law has been broken and let the authorities and public sort it out.
So you're OK with your neighbor reporting that "Vrede had a kid in his house that he may have abducted..." Opps. Didn't know it was Vrede's nephew.
and I'm pretty sure Iran doesn't give much of a tinker's dam about international law.

Do you tell your clients to break the law as long as they do it against a lawbreaker?
No, but it's a little hard to relate international relations with employment law. But let's give it a try. Ordinarily, it would be illegal to assault and physically restrain an employee. But if the employee is threatening his manager with a weapon, we'd certainly advise the client to take him down and sit on him. All law, international and otherwise, depends on buy-in and reasonable compliance from all sides. Picture a court in which one side has to follow the rules of civil procedure, and the other side ignores evidentiary rules, encourages their witnesses to lie, and farts in the general direction of the judge. The process would not go well. If that's the condition under which you have to work, maybe a little creativity would help
I don't know, and haven't seen any evidence to show that the $1.2 billion contract could have been done in-house for $3 mill. Maybe so, maybe not.

The linked article provides enough detail to look further.

But that sounds like political disgruntlement more than whistle-blowing to me.

There's nothing in the linked article to indicate it was anything other than an NSA whistleblower that "tried to make sure incompetence that led to 9/11 doesn’t continue." Wouldn't expect anything in that article to present anything in opposition to its premise. I'm just saying it sounds like political disgruntlement to me.
That said, it is cool that you agree with whistleblowing re torture and illegal 4th Amendment violations. Our disagreement is now just on specifics, - and always has been- not on whistleblowing and extreme prosecutions in general.

[O Really]

"and always has been" - Great, but you didn't express approval for any of the 6 whistleblowing examples until recently.

Well, really I hadn't paid much attention to the cases since most of the rhetoric was about rampant jackbooting, trampled Constitutional rights, witch-hunting complete with duck tests and heroic acts by Luke Skywalker against the Evil Empire. I do generally prefer to address issues on an individual facts and circumstances basis.

[O Really]

Espia La Raza: FBI Infiltrated ’60s Chicano Movement

O Really, this is L.A., not TX, but have you ever FOIAed your FBI file?

No, but it wasn't a secret that the FBI tried, and managed to, infiltrate the Texas La Raza Unida. But with Rosie Castro running free and her kids in highish political positions and Jose Angel Gutierrez an attorney on faculty at UT-Arlington, I'd say I don't have much worry about the jackboots at my door. I've still got my TSA pre-chek. But my little role back then wouldn't have caused a Feeb raised eyebrow anyway.

[O Really]

I've never gotten around to FOIAing mine. Maybe someday. I'm not sure which would disturb me more - if it's very thick or if it's very thin.

For you, I'd guess the latter.

And totally devastating if there wasn't one at all! A lifetime of protest, civil disobedience, and general rabble-rousing and you couldn't even get a footnote on some jackboot's report? Oh, the humanity!!

[Mr.B]

Now we're really in deep doo-doo!

[rstrong]

CIA Wants to Destroy Emails!
FBI Seeks Broader Spy Powers
No-Fly Zone Over Ferguson ‘Was Really to Keep the Media Out’

They hate us for our freedom.

[O Really]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/ns ... cords.html

Bill to Restrict N.S.A. Data Collection Blocked in Vote by Senate Republicans

So as I recall, essentially everybody in the forum, other than me, wants to de-claw the NSA and laments the intrusive spying and loss of privacy, yada. A lot of those people (not just in the forum) objecting also voted for Republicans, largely because they don't like Obama. Another fine example of voting against ones own interests and thus going around noseless.

[O Really]

Anyone that's surprised that Republican pols hate freedom and privacy is a fool.

That's somewhat the point. You've got people at the barricades over NSA "intrusions" and who blame Obama while voting to re-elect the ones who created the marginal legality of the "intrusions" and aren't going to do anything about it.