Daniel Ellsberg:If Petraeus didn't commit felony-neither did Snowden, Manning, Sterling, or Kiriakou

[kpete]

Published on
Friday, March 06, 2015
byCommon Dreams

Daniel Ellsberg: Petraeus Case Shows Hypocrisy of Whistleblower Crackdown
If Petraeus did not commit a felony, neither did Snowden, Manning, Sterling, or Kiriakou, says leaker of Pentagon Papers

........

On Tuesday, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material." Under the parameters of the plea deal he made with the Justice Department, prosecutors will recommend two years probation and no jail time."

Compare that to the actions of Chelsea Manning, who is serving 35 years for leaking classified information. As Ellsberg noted: "Chelsea Manning had access to SCI every day… where she worked in Iraq. She chose to disclose none of it, nothing higher than Secret".

There is also the case of Jeffrey Sterling, convicted last month of leaking classified information to New York Times journalist James Risen, "having first revealed it to Congress, as I did," Ellsberg continued.

Sterling was also convicted under the Espionage Act and will be sentenced later this year. Manning is serving 35 years in prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Ellsberg says Sterling’s "violations of security regulations were in no way more serious than what Petraeus has now admitted to", and that, while it’s too late to do anything about his conviction, the judge should take the Petraeus plea bargain into account at his sentencing.

"If disclosing the identities of covert agents to an unauthorized person and storing them in several unauthorized locations deserves a charge with a maximum sentence of one year," Ellsberg said, "then Edward Snowden should face not more than that same one count."

"The government had the chance to hold Petreaus out as an example on the same felony Espionage Act charges they’ve leveled (unfairly) against every conscientious whistleblower they’ve indicted," Timm concludes. "Their answer? Leaking should no longer be a felony. Let’s make sure we hold them to that, and not only for CIA Directors."


MORE:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/06/daniel-ellsberg-petraeus-case-shows-hypocrisy-whistleblower-crackdown

[Autumn]

1. Daniel Ellsberg is correct.

Rec

[Aerows]

61. Yep. n/t

[billhicks76]

72. We Live In A Dictatorship

And even our leaders won't stand up to it.

[uhnope]

180. totally. I can't even write that on an online discussion forum.

People are routinely imprisoned without trial for speaking their mind.
Opposition politicians, journalists, uncooperative judges, outspoken liberals and dissidents are murdered on the street.
Bands of thugs roam the streets enforcing the dictatorship and terrorizing people who don't go along.
Laws against being gay.
Businessmen with friends in the government can take over my business and if I don't cooperate, the police arrest me on invented charges.
The government routinely takes over corporations and plunder them for their profits.
Trials mean nothings and no one who opposes the government ever gets a fail trial, or even a trial at all.
Yeah, all those definitions of dictatorship are here. It's not a sad and ridiculous abuse of the word at all, not at all insulting to people fighting real dictatorships.

[wordpix]

189. let's hear the AG on this - oh, yeah, our new one isn't confirmed b/c she's black & female

grrrr.

[wordpix]

186. +100000. Of course a bigwig like Petraeus is treated differently

that us peons.

[marym625]

2. K&R!

[The Blue Flower]

3. Someone had to say it

Petraeus committed serious crimes with intention. Why the hell did his girlfriend need to have those notebooks?

[JDPriestly]

158. So that she could write a flattering autobiography of him supposedly.

Seems to me that as his girlfriend she could have written something very flattering about his person without all that information.

Snowden, et al disobeyed for noble reasons -- to inform the public of facts that they found too troubling to keep secret.

Petraeus disobeyed for self-serving reasons -- at least as far as we know in order to make himself look good.

Who deserves the longest sentence?

Seems to me it is Petraeus.

And of course, the worst of it is that now with ISIS, we see just how utterly unwise his buying "peace" in Iraq was. I'd like to know what the link is between his program of paying Iraqis off and the current ISIS problem. I don't know whether there is any, but it seems to me that is a question to be explored. At any rate, all the money we spent trying to rebuild Iraq and build democracy and social stability in Iraq (if that is what we were really trying to do) was wasted.

Petraeus was responsible for a lot of the failure. The powers that be praised his strategy but it does not appear to have worked well at all.

[randome]

4. I guess we'll never know since Snowden likely will live the rest of his life in Russia.

What Snowden 'deserves' is a pointless daydream without him returning to face a trial.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

5. ...

[Cryptoad]

21. Yet no warrants have been issued for these supposely crimes

that this traitor claim were committed.

[Scuba]

23. War criminals do seem to get a free pass in this country. Shame it's that way.

Whistleblowers, on the other hand, go to jail.

[Cryptoad]

24. still doesnt address why no warrants have been issued.

[Scuba]

26. "Looking forward" I guess.

[cui bono]

89. Well prosecuting more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined might explain it a bit. n/t

[Aerows]

54. I'm shocked.

Totally shocked that you showed up in this thread.

As least you cleaned up your signature.

When randome, msanthorpe and assorted others show up, we should all have party.

[Cryptoad]

108. You 're so funny....

my signature is the same it has been for years...... no wonder you are so funny!

[blackspade]

107. That is because they are the power elite.

They have the money and influence to avoid facing justice.
Petraus is just the latest example of this double standard.

[Cryptoad]

109. really,,,,,,,,

you do realize anybody can petition the courts for a warrant.......

[blackspade]

111. I believe there have been several petitions for Cheney's dumb ass....

But that went nowhere...
I wonder why?

BECAUSE HE IS PART OF THE POWER ELITE. get it now?

Jeez...

[Cryptoad]

113. The ass hole did many things that I find almost evil. l...

but that doesn't not make them necessarily illegal.. There are no known arrest warrants outstanding on Cheney or Bush. They were requested but not granted. I doubt it was because he is considered elite in the EU.

[blackspade]

118. Are you seriously giving that criminal a pass?

An illegal war that killed thousands, torture, and destroying an entire CIA network designed to stop Nuclear proliferation not enough for you?

Holy fucking shit, unbelievable.

[Cryptoad]

120. Im just stating a fact to you,,, no warrants have been issued for that ass hole.

[Ken Burch]

144. A fact that means nothing.

Why are you trumpeting it as if it vindicates everything that's been done to people like Snowden and Manning?

[Cryptoad]

146. it is what it is.........

[Ken Burch]

147. So is everything else. So what?

The lack of warrants means nothing.

[Cryptoad]

149. sure it means something,,,,

It all in the Why of it....

[Rex]

121. I see

you don't know that poster very well. Some around here have extremely flexible morals.

[wordpix]

187. xactly

[TheKentuckian]

7. Yeah, we do know. The sample size is large enough to be clear.

[KingCharlemagne]

10. All due respect, but what possible reason would Snowden have to return now to

face the same kind of kangaroo-court, Ferguson-style justice faced by Manning, Kiriakou, et. al.?

[Logical]

14. You are gullible as hell. nt

[Rex]

126. I doubt that.

More like option number 2.

[sabrina 1]

27. Only until this country restores the rule of law. Other nations have gone through periods like this

but eventually managed to restore the rule of law, and even after decades sometimes, began the process of holding the real criminals accountable.

The US is going through one of those periods right now, but thankfully there are many courageous people here who will not stop until War Criminals are held accountable, and Whistle Blowers are exonerated for trying to stop and/or expose them.

It is inevitable, unless we go the way of the Roman Empire, which I doubt.

[sabrina 1]

32. Well that's what I'm talking about actually. We do have laws, we have the Constitution of the US

which is the supreme law of the land. I do see the law applied to ordinary people. And to some extent it was applied to people like Nixon, though not nearly to the extent it should have been.

Now there are zero consequences at all for those in positions of power, unless they step out of line.

So I guess it would be more clear if I said we held those in power accountable under the existing laws even to the extent we did wrt to people lie Nixon and his henchmen, some of whom actually were convicted.

[jmowreader]

38. Charles Colson was Watergate. Oliver North was Iran-Contra

[Aerows]

62. You sound almost fond

and wistful of living the "daydream" of Snowden not facing a trial, randome.

Is there a trial in your future that scares you?

[Rex]

124. I wonder why a military general gets a free pass, but a lowly worker does not?

Not really...I think I know why.

[Rex]

122. You still mad bro?

Nice that you never say anything about the good general.

[randome]

127. Maybe because he doesn't interest me.

A high-ranking intelligence officer having a fling with a potential spy? That's nothing.

Now a contractor who steals millions of documents, flees the country, gives those documents to corporate media offices and who thought his Powerpoint slide of PRISM would make him a hero?

That's interesting.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

128. LAWL "A high-ranking intelligence officer having an affair? That's nothing."

LOL! AND...what else did he do!? You are so obvious, like an open book...

[randome]

130. I already updated my post to be more accurate.

But the fact is no one was apparently harmed by Petraeus' indiscretions. Snowden, on the other hand, has done some damage. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a lot but it's clear he has an agenda other than 'truth, justice and the American Way'. At least to me it is.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

131. Thanks for admitting to playing CYA for the good general. It is right there in your post, TY!

I knew you wouldn't actually come out and say he gave away TOP SECRET documents to a potential spy. Seriously you are such an easy book to read, thank you for showing your hand to the forum!

"Doesn't interest you." OF COURSE he does not interest you, OF COURSE.

[randome]

133. He gave away top secret documents to a potential spy. That wasn't hard at all.

And still no damage was done.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

134. Curious, how do you know that!?

You seem so sure about both men. Why is that? I understand, for some reason you want to bash the civilian and omit the general. Like I said, your call for everyone to see. No logic behind your reason, but that happens sometimes too. You backed yourself into a corner so now cannot answer or refute.

Sorry, checkmate.

[randome]

142. Goodnight, sweet prince.

Get it? 'Prince'? Because 'Rex' is Latin for king and...oh, the hell with it, I'm tired. Good night.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

156. Yes heard that my entire life, along with "fetch doggy!"

I am amused by the two since one is a king and the other is a dog. NN.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

176. Major fail. Really major. Pathetic. nt

[neverforget]

155. Funny how the General gets a pass but Snowden not so much

One leaked for abuse of power, the other for an affair.

[Rex]

157. Well I will get Snowed for saying this, but ONE passed along TS information

while the other passed on secret information. I won't argue who was in the best position to steal 'secrets' or if they are both traitors. And I can only assume from the information passed down second hand to us, that any of it is true.

General walks away just like Oliver North did. Manning in prison and Snowden hiding in Russia. Just can't buy the double standard.

Hell I am old enough to remember people defending Oliver North and Colon Powell!

[Enthusiast]

171. Oliver North remains a hero to this day to the RW knuckledraggers.

Especially to the religious right that will only think the best of Saint Ronald.

Iran—Contra was a real crime, an actual impeachable offense. We shouldn't have looked forward on that one either. There is Great Harm in looking forward, as I'm sure you have noticed.

[rhett o rick]

174. It's typical authoritarian behavior. They love themselves some Generals.

Liberals are constantly wary of authority. They understand the dangers. Conservatives love authority. They like to have someone strong telling them what to do and how to think. We've been raised with it on the school ground. The big bully always has his authoritarian followers egging him on.

[malaise]

6. That is precisely what I said

From day one

[Aerows]

63. Indeed you did

and you were 100% right regardless of those who try to soft sell it.

[Duppers]

74. great minds reason in the same tract

You're always on point, Malaise.

[malaise]

86. Not always

but I try

[rhett o rick]

8. Mr. Ellsberg is a thorn in the side of the Conservatives. He is here pointing out

their authoritarian hypocrisy. Conservatives want to believe that their leaders are looking out for them. As authoritarians they don't want to hear the truth but live in a fog of denial.

Some seem to be willing to give up their freedoms and liberties for the promise of security. They are our biggest danger.

Gen Clapper's dictatorial running of the NSA/CIA Security State may be in the interest now, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to be.

[bread_and_roses]

15. The Conservatives? Isn't it the Obama Justice Dept prosecuting

whistleblowers at an unprecedented rate? Maybe i'm mistaken? I freely admit to being so discouraged and disillusioned and angry at this Administration for so many things I don't trust my own recall -

[rhett o rick]

18. Abso-fracking-lutely. I said the Conservatives. The persecution of whistle-blowers and

honest journalists is by definition the acts of conservatives.

There is a purity test for being progressive. If one believes in the persecution of whistle-blowers, one isn't progressive.

[randome]

34. Wrong. A total of 8 have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

And although that's more than previous presidents, it's usually framed in such an amorphous way as to imply that Obama is just goin' crazy with prosecutions.

In the same way as you choose to frame it as "an unprecedented rate". You don't bother to mention the number, it's much easier to generate fear and distrust when you aren't precise.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. So you don't condem prosecuting whisteblowers....just the amount?

Or would that even make a difference?

So do you also use this argument for other debates? Like a spousal abuser..He only hit her 8 times...Her last husband hit her 6 times so its not really that much more.

And just the fact that this ominous behavior is trending upwards is no concern? Because......its not "goin' crazy"?

The extents you twist yourself into your positions using red herrings and straw men is truly remarkable in your quest to defend those who speak power to truth.

[randome]

45. Not whistleblowers. Leakers. There is a difference.

And my main complaint is with the framing. "...an unprecedented rate..." is technically correct but it's a phrase designed to, as I said, make it appear as if Obama is mad with power. Or he simply hates people, which is pretty obvious, I guess, once you look at everything he's done.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

47. "There is a difference."

To you.

And you're complaining about framing...

[Aerows]

60. That individual

can't carry on a conversation without a GPS to see where it is going, a flashlight to make sure it is shined upon the things the poster feels necessary, and an archive to hide in when proven wrong.

[Rex]

139. Funny that particular poster seems unable to even make a small critique

about a traitor-ish acting general that gave away top secret documents to a potential spy. They even said it was NO BIG DEAL! I love it when the slip falls a tiny bit and everyone can see it!

I mean, how much more obvious can one get?

[cui bono]

91. Oh, please. Why are you so intent to condemn Snowden? Why are you not as outraged about the NSA's

activities?

[randome]

102. Because, except for the occasional lapse that happens with every law enforcement agency...

...the NSA is not doing anything illegal. (That we know of.)

If Snowden wants to believe he is above the Supreme Court, that's his problem. But applying "Unconstitutional!" to everything is something that Republicans do too often, as witness their screams of "Unconstitutional!" regarding Obama's immigration initiative.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[druidity33]

76. That's more than all previous Presidents combined. nt.

[randome]

104. Eight leakers, eight prosecutions.

Yes, you're right, it's technically more than previous Presidents. Perhaps the question to ask is why there are more leakers during Obama's presidency.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

173. Maybe the whistle-blowers think they will be treated fairly by a Democratic

Admin. Wrong. Peons can't see behind the curtain. Candidate Obama said he was for transparency. Pres Obama, not so much.

[cui bono]

90. That total of 8 proves that statement to be correct, how can you claim it is wrong?

That is more prosecuted than under all other presidents combined. Hell, just 5 was enough for that, but POTUS went for 8.

I'd say that makes it a lot.

And why is he doing it? That's the real question. Care to venture a guess?

[randome]

103. Because there are more leakers than in previous administrations.

Every President will go after leakers. It's open season on Obama. Is it because he's black?

So if you don't accept my premise that every President prosecutes leakers, suppose you venture your own guess as to why Obama is behaving like every previous President.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

110. That is not a valid arguement and you know it.

There were plenty of 'leakers' under Shrub that were not prosecuted.

[randome]

112. Really? Are you holding out the Bush administration as a model of behavior?

Are you talking about the Rove/Plame/Novak affair, which was a politically motivated 'good' leak for the administration? They did a lot of investigations of leaks.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

116. Nice try at a smear

[link:|

No, I am not holding up the most lawless criminal regime in US history as a model of behavior.
But I do find it peculiar that loads of these criminals are still creeping around, some still in government while folks that have actually disclosed, 'leaked', evidence of their crimes are punished instead.
It tells me that the system is corrupt to its core and even a man like Obama is nearly powerless to correct it in two terms.

[randome]

123. We're in agreement about the Bush, Jr. administration.

But you did ask why Obama is 'going after' leakers but you haven't made any suggestions.

I think it's clear that Obama is simply following the law, nothing more sinister than that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

163. That's the thing, I'm not convinced that Obama is the guiding hand...

In the persecutions.
And I have been clear on why I think that is.
There are hands on the levers of power in DC, and that are the ones that run the place.
Patreaus is one of them, and thus benefits from the double standard that lets him walk and gets the Chelsea Mannings of the world locked up.
One big difference I see also is that Patreaus didn't reveal criminal activity, and thus his exposure of top secret material wasn't a threat to those in power.

[cui bono]

168. Playing the "black" card? That can go both ways. It's open season on anyone who criticizes Obama.

Is it because he's black?

Regardless, you are now changing what you said previously. I responded to your claim that 8 was not a large amount of whistleblower prosecutions, when in fact it is more than all other presidents COMBINED.

Considering there have been far more than 8 presidents, your new statement that every president prosecutes what you are determined to call leakers but are in fact whistleblowers is incorrect.

Or if you meant actual leakers, then you are purposely changing the topic.

Either way you are incorrect. Spin away, but the fact remains that Obama has greatly ramped up the prosecution of whistleblowers by prosecuting more than all previous presidents combined.

[ND-Dem]

9. kr

[Jefferson23]

11. Yes. K&R

[99Forever]

12. Yep. K&R

[libodem]

13. .

Otherwise it's a double standard.

[SHRED]

16. The 1% take care of their own

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. "For reasons of national security" is a convenient way to cover up crimes and is used to do so.

The other way is to make crimes legal. Torture, murder, extortion, blackmail, theft, conspiracy, etc are pronounced "legal" and are even called "patriotic".

[Cryptoad]

19. Birds of a Feather,,,,,,,

[FairWinds]

20. So where are all those DU'ers who went . .

on and on about the moral and ethical failings of Manning and Snowden?

They seem to be totally OK with Petraeus.

[Rex]

22. Are you kidding me? They would have to come in here and criticize one of their heroes!

Generals get a free pass, strange but true.

[still_one]

88. Sorry, but those who have been critical of Snowden, the majority in that group at DU were NOT fans

of Petraus

[cui bono]

92. Let's see... Petraeus was appointed by Obama...

Snowden revealed wrong doings of an agency under Obama's control...

Hm... what could it be?

[still_one]

170. Both Petraeus was a republican, appointed by a republican when he was general in Afghanistan. When

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

he appointed him had of the CIA and replaced him with General Stanley McChrystal, Obama was trying to build cooperation between the parties for an easy confirmation.and he got it, a unanimous confirmation. He actually had no vested interest in Petraeus, just did not want to shake things up too much.

Obama Absolutely had nothing to do with appointing Snowden. He was a private contractor, and I suspect you would find those that were supporters of Obama on DU were probably divided on DU when it came to Snowden's actions

[cui bono]

192. I never said Snowden was appointed by Obama.

[still_one]

194. I know you didn't, you were referring to Pretraus for that, and my thoughts were simply that he

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

appointed Pretraus to the CIA director I suspect because he didn't want republican obstruction like they are doing with the AG.

I didn't mean to imply Snowden, and If I did, my apologies.

[cui bono]

196. Okay, I see. No problem. I just wanted it on record that I knew that!

[Rex]

119. Yeah I fall in that group too and yet I seem to be able to be critical of both men.

Generals get a pass here for some reason. Like I said, just by a few and I guess that does not include you though you felt compelled to speak up.

[Rex]

135. I'm talking to someone right now in this very thread that seems to know that the good general

did no harm and Snowden did much harm. Why or how would they know that? Seriously, this person just proved my post 100 correct.

Sorry Charlie.

[libodem]

28. .

[backscatter712]

40. That's right! General Betray-Us discloses classified info for nookie...

And that's just fine and dandy with them - he gets little more than a speeding ticket. I don't hear the Usual Crew braying for his punishment.

But when Snowden does the same thing, to expose our country's crimes against its own people, they're demanding he get the death penalty.

Perfectly fair, of course!

[jmowreader]

59. It's not that I'm okay with Petraeus; far from it

Before we get into this, we have a slight "volume" problem to deal with: if Petraeus' disclosures were the equivalent of stealing a pail of water, Manning and Snowden made off with the whole lake.

David Petraeus is a worthless piece of shit who needs to be locked in a hole so deep they have to pipe in sunlight.

Here's the problem:



If David Petraeus walks into court dressed like that - as a military retiree, he has the complete right to - it's going to influence the jury in a way we don't want him to. Why do you think Oliver North testified before Congress in his full Marine dress uniform? And now we're talking about putting the Great Hero of Mosul (he did a very good job there) on trial rather than the Four Star Philanderer who passed top-secret documents to the woman he was cheating on his wife with.

There's also the issue of evidence: Petraeus' lawyers can demand an open trial and they can demand the documents he handed over to his girlfriend be entered into evidence. Depending on what he released, the government may not want any more classified information in the hands of the public than Snowden and Manning already put there...if the government refuses to allow the documents into evidence his lawyers can move for dismissal on grounds they can't properly defend their client without the information, and they'd probably get it.

More reality: Petraeus isn't equivalent to Snowden and Manning. Snowden and Manning are worker bees. There is no disgrace in being one - most of us are exactly that - but if these people wouldn't have fucked up in ways beyond major, none of us would ever have heard of them. David Petraeus is a retired four-star general, the former head of the CIA, and if he could have managed to uphold his marriage vows, he could very well have been president. If we would have charged Snowden or Manning with a misdemeanor, they would have served their sentences and gone on with their business. Petraeus' life is OVER! No one's ever going to ask this man to do anything ever again - I doubt he can even get a gig on Fox News. But if Petraeus (1) gets charged with a felony and walks or (2) gets his conviction overturned on appeal, he's back and bigger than ever. Check out Ollie.

On a strategic level I'd love to see Petraeus cast in the dankest dungeon in all the kingdom and left there to rot. On a tactical level, a conviction he can't get overturned at the appellate level will completely destroy his life regardless of whether it's felony or misdemeanor.

[MADem]

67. Petraus mishandled classified, and he left it with someone who shouldn't have had it.

She did have the clearance to view the material, as far as I know, though.

It's not like he handed it to the Chinese, the Russians, Glenn Greenwald and the world. For this reason, I don't see the comparison to Snowden as apt.

That said, as a senior leader, his accountability and responsibility are magnified. I think he needs to do some Pokey Time, myself, but that's not going to happen.

I've seen servicemembers tossed out on their ears, for FAR less than what Petraus did.

What's really unfair is that he'll be able to go on with his life, make hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the woman he seduced with his shiny four stars and fancy taxpayer-funded plane is cast off and called "harlot" and worse. Certainly, she was a fucking MORON, but she won't be able to move on and make "big money" in government affiliated business like he can. She, as far as the military was concerned, was the "victim" of a senior in an inappropriate senior - subordinate relationship, and she'll pay the price for the rest of her life, while he goes on to a life of wealth and reputation-mended respectability. It's just not right. Or fair.

FWIW, Petraus doesn't have the "right" to wear his uniform to court. He has the "right" to wear it at a Memorial Day ceremony, when speaking to a military group, when marching in a parade of military retirees, and that kind of thing, but he doesn't have a right to wear it to court--that would be construed as trying to use the uniform to enhance his credibility, and that's not permitted. It could also be viewed as bringing disgrace upon the uniform, since he's been convicted.

He'd have to show up in a suit like everyone else.

From what I know about the new SECDEF, he has a mind like a steel trap, knows every regulation, and doesn't forget a thing. Even though he has never served, I'm betting he'd frown on any attempt by Petraeus to burnish his reputation by mis-using the uniform.

[TheKentuckian]

69. Classist drivel of intense magnitude

"Destroyed life" my ass. Most will never have it so good.

Fucking disgustingly counter to equality.

Is there a spitting emoticon?

[Rex]

73. Post #22

Mmmhhmmm...

[backscatter712]

95. Betray-Us will get a gig on FAUX "News".

He'll make seven figures as a talking head alongside fellow traitor Oliver North...

Must be rough for him.

[Rex]

137. Not only see my post #22 but look for my sub-thread (upthread) for evidence.

Getting certain people to even make a tiny critique about a certain traitor-ish like Army general is like pulling teeth around here! Some civilian dude? Easy as pie for them!

[El Shaman]

25. It just shows

how great 'American Justice' is.


(snark function 'on')

[uhnope]

29. Ellsberg is a great figure from history but he's kind of lost it now

Sometimes old guys need to still feel relevant.

Ellsberg faced trial, and that's what Snowden must do if he wants to be claim to be a whistleblower exercising civil disobedience.

[elias49]

56. I'd knew you wouldn't let us down!!

[uhnope]

58. funny how you can only mock

but never discuss.

It's pretty obvious why. It seems you don't support Snowden so much as the regime that's harboring him.

[Cooley Hurd]

70. Yoko said it best...

[elias49]

78. Haha!

Why in heaven's name would I want to try to 'discuss' with you?
I find you a shallow one-trick pony.
"Discussions" here would be a full time job. And I already have one of those. Some here are WAY too invested in DU.
So I'll just go on with flippant remarks when I read stupid.

[uhnope]

101. thanks for being honest

that insult and BS are your stock in trade. Back to your "full time job" then



Like Excuses, Septic Tanks Must Be Watertight

[nilesobek]

148. There's nothing wrong with that job.

I have done that job an many others I'm sure you would find repellent. What an awful thing to say. WTH is wrong with you? You a one issue pony that has some creme job? Enlighten all of us workers.

[uhnope]

150. what's a metaphor?

For nothing in this case

[nilesobek]

151. That's some real elitist crap.

Do a days work.

[uhnope]

152. you don't send me flowers anymore

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=238584

[nilesobek]

153. I know there is a human being behind every screen.

And nothing against you or anything like that. I just was a little offended by the image because I just did a legendary job on a septic system just like that except I didn't have to crawl into the thing. Maybe I prove your point. Don't quit that day job.

[uhnope]

161. it's honest work and all honest work is good

I am a self-employed editor/proofreader/"publications consultant" (self-employed means poor but independent).

I'd do that job of yours if I could

[nilesobek]

162. I respect your profession. I went to school to be

a writer but ended up a laborer with some stories and poems.

[uhnope]

184. the writer's market is shrinking but

the septic tanks will always need draining.

The stories and poems are for your soul. Write everyday and keep writing, it doesn't matter if you're not a pro yet.

Also, your experience sounds like the background of some very good writers I've read. I'm pretty sure that in many ways we're better off than people who've never had to do a dirty job in their life.

[nilesobek]

159. Can you even tell me what you do for a job?

Do you even have a real one? Trolling the anti-russia communist dinosaur crowd?

[blackspade]

164. Septic tanks are not water tight.

That is why they have drainage fields.

And why the hate on working people that clean them?
Do you look down your nose at the garbage man too?

[cui bono]

94. Unike what you did in the post elias49 was responding to. Riiiiiiight...

[uhnope]

100. BS2

I said this:

Ellsberg faced trial, and that's what Snowden must do if he wants to be claim to be a whistleblower exercising civil disobedience.

That's discussion.

[cui bono]

169. After you dismissed him as being old and some other ridiculous thing.

Btw... I hope you read those other posts about how whistleblowers' lives were ruined. It's full of information of which you apparently weren't aware. I would hope you would retract your previous statements.

[uhnope]

182. I saw your lengthy post

I'm not ignoring it, will reply when there's time.

Though, off the cuff--so Snowden shouldn't face justice because his life might be ruined (and I argue that this possibility is way overblown)? Isn't that the chance you take? Ellsberg took that chance.

I think it's a poor excuse for Snowden to continue his charade.

[cui bono]

193. Ellsburg has also said Snowden should not return because he would not be treated fairly

or something to that affect.

What charade? You hate Snowden. I get it. That doesn't matter though.

[uhnope]

195. if you want a discussion, don't do the straw man thing, OK?

I haven't impugned your motives or mischaracterized your position--I've said how I see the situation and never once made it personal

[cui bono]

197. Okay, sorry for that. Perhaps you shouldn't refer to his actions as a charade then. n/t

[Marr]

98. Huh? You're the one who openned with smearing the messenger instead of

discussing the topic.

I read a book by a sociologist on the subject of authoritarians, and one of the more interesting quirks of the personality type is that they have a strong tendency to be blind to hypocrisy. They consistently accuse others of things they themselves are doing. Weird, huh?

[uhnope]

99. psychobabble and $3 will get you a grand latte

I said this:

Ellsberg faced trial, and that's what Snowden must do if he wants to be claim to be a whistleblower exercising civil disobedience.

That's discussion.

[Marr]

105. No, it's shallow character assassination.

I notice you left out your comments on Ellsberg's mental incompetence and irrelevance.

Don't pretend Snowden would earn your respect by impaling himself on our legal system. Ellsberg stood up to it, but you only acknowledge that to use it as a club to beat Snowden with-- and even then you couldn't keep yourself from smearing Ellsberg.

You didn't address his point at all.

[uhnope]

125. only to someone engaging in hero worship would that appear to be character assassination

I addressed the basic point Ellsberg has been making all along--a strong parallel between his case and Snowden's--and I said what I think of it.

About this specific article, though I would not call myself a conservative Democrat, post #46 says it well.

BTW you talk about Snowden "impaling" himself on our legal system. Makes him sound like a vampire! While I might agree, I think "crucifying" would more likely be the metaphor you're looking for.

[deurbano]

75. "He's kind of lost it now"? "Sometimes old guys need to still feel relevant"?

If you disagree with him, just challenge his assertions. You may recall that a certain band of "plumbers" were attempting to gain evidence to discredit his mental health back when he was doing the thing that made him a "great figure from history." ("The past is never dead. It's not even past.&quot

Everyone wants to feel relevant... don't see what age has to do with it.

[cui bono]

93. I'm curious... in your sig you have a solidarity graphic.

Just who are you in solidarity with?

[uhnope]

117. notice the spelling

this


re

[Octafish]

175. Capital.

I wonder if Capitalism's Invisible Army is hiring?

[uhnope]

183. overpaid

This army is hiring, though:

[grasswire]

30. K&R for consistency in application of the Rule of LAW

A bedrock principle of our American existence.

[Adrahil]

33. But Patreaus DID commit a felony.

He just had the best lawyers money can buy. And as usual, money buys freedom in our justice system.

[Demeter]

52. He has blackmail power, and he's not afraid to use it

One would have to think, with all the material Snowden extracted, there must have been something blackmail-worthy, and yet, Ed doesn't go there.

Of course, everything so far exposed IS blackmail-worthy, because it is a Constitutional violation.

[ReRe]

35. K&R

This is exactly what came to my mind the other day when that came down about Petraeus. When did we repeal the Whistleblower policy, that's what I want to know. Was the Patriot Act responsible for it's demise?

[Roland99]

36. Must be related to the volume of data released.

Sorta like speeding more than 25mph over the limit.


Or maybe more akin to being more dead vs just merely dead.


Or, more likely, on a scale of how embarrassing it is to the current admin.

[Octafish]

37. That would be Justice.

Which would require the end of Just-Us.

Great essay, Dr. Ellsberg.

[Enthusiast]

41. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Daniel Ellsberg is right on!

[packman]

42. Reminds me of the quote from Animal Farm

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[daredtowork]

44. Thank you. nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

46. And since Pareaus drove 1 MPH over the speed limit

...that means everyone who deliberately drove 110 MPH down a closed 15 MPH street through an ongoing 4th of July Parade, doing their best to destroy it and endangering thousands of lives, is clearly not guilty of anything.



All this really proves is that Ellsberg has no clue about the law. Or how it is applied.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

51. I trust Ellsberg knows what he is speaking about over a self described conservative.

Conservatives don't like whistle-blowers, or anyone that speaks truth to our authoritative leaders. Conservatives prefer authoritarian leadership of the likes of Petraeus, Clapper und Alexander.

Democracy needs transparency, but conservatives aren't that hot on democracy.

[Aerows]

65. I boiled the noodles for too long

they are still edible, even though you crack your teeth on them and feel like crap for two days afterwards. No reason to reprimand me, since the noodles got boiled.

[TheKentuckian]

71. It is 2015, in context what does identifying as a conservative Democrat mean?

Are we waiting for the south to rise again?

Trying for forced ultrasounds?

Think Dr. Strangelove is an instruction manual?

Believe taxation is theft?


What about "centrist" Democrats is too hippy dippy for you?

[deurbano]

82. Those made me laugh (out loud, even)!

[Hissyspit]

84. What a dumb analogy.

Desperate, hunh?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/03/david-petraeus-pleads-guilty-classified-information-paula-broadwell

'The plea deal establishes that Petraeus shared “black books” with Broadwell with “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus’s discussions with the President of the United States of America”.'

[cui bono]

97. And that's supposed to be a minor offense?

The lengths people will go to in order to defend someone... sheesh.

If only we all could stand for and defend principles like that.

[uhnope]

132. courts also take intent into consideration

a lame-ass general showing some papers to a bed partner that was not a spy vs. a hacker dumping hundreds of thousands of secret docs, including ones about the global tracking of terrorism, when he doesn't even know what's in those docs as he runs off to live in a vicious fascist state that has made itself an enemy of the country.

Yeah, I'd say that like 1mph vs 100mph

[Hissyspit]

138. Yeah, intention matters.

Revealing war crimes and unconstitutional actions vs trying to get laid. What Patraeus did was massively serious for an officer of the military.

This is bullshit politics and you know it.

And it's a bullshit analogy and you know it.

[uhnope]

143. you've avoided the point

In a way, it's all a BS argument because the different cases are apples vs oranges (many dissimilarities)

if Snowden's supposed intent were as admirable as you say, then he would stay and face trial. You didn't address the point, which is that there might possibly be reasons that Petraeus could be treated differently than Snowden--never mind the fact that what they did was simply not the same, too different to work up outrage over unless there's some personal issue involved

[wordpix]

190. seriously, put on your thinking cap

People like Snowden and Manning did nothing worse than Petraeus and they helped US understand what is going on behind the scenes - scenes that we pay for as taxpayers, BTW. But Snowden et. al are treated differently in the eyes of the law, the reason being the general is a bigwig and they're not.

[mother earth]

49. Ellsberg is so right, as relevant today, actually, MORE. K & R & TY, kpete!

[Aerows]

50. Be aware of those that despise

Manning, Snowden, and Kiriakou.

If they give a pass to Patreaus, you will know them by their actions.

It is essentially a watermark.

Since this is a political forum, however, that shouldn't surprise a soul, just makes it disgusting how low folks will go to drag down absolutely anything contrary to their narrative.

[mother earth]

55. I so agree.

[FairWinds]

53. Long ago, I had a security clearance . .

and still know a little bit about what is involved.
I would call your attention to Ellsberg's very important point
that Manning had access to all sorts of TOP SECRET info, but
chose to release none of it. He released nothing above "SECRET."

Petreaus, on the other hand released all sort of TOP SECRET info, which
makes his crime much, much worse . .

So of course he gets a pass.

[Aerows]

57. Raise your hand

if you have a bond taken out on your name. I do, for numerous reasons.

I'll leave it to everyone on the board to ascertain why that may be, but it isn't because I'm a fraudulent idiot, and it isn't because I have loose lips.

If *I* as puny and unmentionable as I am have a bond on my head, what sort of liability insurance do you think said General has, while he committed grievous breeches of protocol?

Think about that for a few minutes, and think about the implications of it. Follow the money is not a bad place to begin.

[DeSwiss]

64. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

- If they are. This is how a criminal corporate-state is run.

K&R

[Aerows]

66. When you labor under the idea that

bending the law, explaining it, and then breaking it with equal conscience that you did nothing wrong, that's where you end up. You can justify anything because "you" are a "champion" against lawlessness while engaging in it yourself.

When somebody reveals that lawlessness, you just point the finger of "criminal" at them, and go about your own business of breaking the law, thinking you are absolved.

[blackspade]

115. Exactly, it's called hegemony

[kelliekat44]

68. I agree 100% nt

[cstanleytech]

77. Oh there is some difference though, Manning and Snowden released thousands of classified documents

and some of those involved methods the US was using to spy on "other" governments.

[elias49]

79. And Patraeus didn't? Wha?

And it seems like Patraeus did it out of vanity! He had no interest, expressed or otherwise, in providing information to the American public.
I see that as an important distinction.

[cstanleytech]

83. I didnt say he didnt do anything, in fact I think he got off far, far to light.

[Octafish]

80. None of them named CIA agents...

Which is only part of what Petraeus' girlfriend managed to obtain.

David Petraeus, the former Army general and CIA director, admitted today that he gave highly-classified journals to his onetime lover and that he lied to the FBI about it. But he only has to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor that will not involve a jail sentence thanks to a deal with federal prosecutors. The deal is yet another example of a senior official treated leniently for the sorts of violations that lower-level officials are punished severely for.

According to the plea deal, Petraeus, while leading American forces in Afghanistan, maintained eight notebooks that he filled with highly-sensitive information about the identities of covert officers, military strategy, intelligence capabilities and his discussions with senior government officials, including President Obama. Rather than handing over these “Black Books,” as the plea agreement calls them, to the Department of Defense when he retired from the military in 2011 to head the CIA, Petraeus retained them at his home and lent them, for several days, to Paula Broadwell, his authorized biographer and girlfriend.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/03/petraeus-plea-deal-reveals-two-tier-justice-system-leaks/

[cstanleytech]

85. I only said though there are "some" differences and I already said I believe he got off

far to light.

[Hissyspit]

81. Oh, please. W T F?

If Petraeus weren't a general, he'd have had the book thrown at him

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-0307-saturday-petraeus-20150307-story.html

Your attempted rationalization cries out for pity:

"The plea deal establishes that Petraeus shared “black books” with Broadwell with “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus’s discussions with the President of the United States of America”."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/03/david-petraeus-pleads-guilty-classified-information-paula-broadwell

[Hissyspit]

87. Here's an investigative article about

how Manning and Snowden instituted torture program:

Oh, wait, no, that's Patraeus, sorry....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

[blkmusclmachine]

96. Depends on who is, and who is not, a member of "THE FAMILY."

[cstanleytech]

114. Exactly. Take Scooter Libby for example, he took a bullet for Bush and Bush

then gave him a literal get out of jail free card.

[blackspade]

106. A sickening double standard

I guess membership has its privileges....

[Omaha Steve]

129. Yep

K&R!

[Rex]

140. Yes it does! Just look at all the apologists here for the good general that have ignored that

double standard. Back them into a corner and they got NOTHING.

[blackspade]

165. Oh, I noticed. And have for years....

[whistler162]

136. So Ellsberg thinks Snowden should return and

face prosecution just as Petreaus would have if he hadn't taken the deal.

[WillyT]

141. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[TwilightGardener]

145. Petraeus should be a felon, should serve jail time. Absolutely.

But he's speshul--he has $$ for good lawyers, and he knows a lot of secrets about a lot of things, and people.

[Thinkingabout]

154. This is interesting, now we have admissions Snowden, Manning, Sterling and Kiriakou has committed

felonies. Progress has been made.

[blackspade]

166. That would be no.

That is not what is in the article.

[Thinkingabout]

167. Sure sounds like the author thought Petraeus should be charged also.

[blackspade]

172. IF Manning et al are being charged under that shitty 1918 law...

Then Patraeus should too. THAT is the point of the article.
It is not an admission that Manning et al should have been charged in the first place.
There is a double standard being practiced here when a General and a former CIA Director gets a slap on the wrist for not only keeping personal notebooks if TOP SECRET information unsecured in his home, but then giving them to his mistress, unsupervised. He was not disclosing criminality like the rest of the 'leakers.'

But you knew that already if you read the article or the rest of this tread.

[Thinkingabout]

177. I lived and worked withand by your description of "shitty" 1918 law,

None of these people you name or think about did not have to sign on to the positions and this includes Petraeus. I did not nor do I have a problem with following this shitty law, there was a good reason for the shitty law and actions of violators should be punished to the fullest extent. It should be recognized this violation of this shitty law violated our citizens. If you don't like illegal wiretapping then you should love this shitty law.

[blackspade]

178. Thanks for making no sense at all.

I'm moving on since you can't carry on a coherent conversation....

[Thinkingabout]

179. Good when your phone conversations are revealed dont complain.

[LiberalLovinLug]

181. ?

So let me get this straight. You defend an ancient law that throws whistleblowers in jail for revealing, or confirming for those that say they all knew it anyways, their own governments secret ongoing unconstitutional mass evesdroppong on its own citizens, in hopes to stir conversation that will reign in this behavior.

And in the same breath tell OTHERS not to complain when their phone conversations are revealed. O.............kay.

[Thinkingabout]

185. Communication company employees can also be charges under the same law.

[blackspade]

188. What the hell are you talking about now?

What does a 1918 espionage law have to do with my phone conversations?
That is why I say your making no sense.

Maybe that was your intent?

[libodem]

160. .

[wordpix]

191. The more I read this the better is the case Ellsberg's making

[Blue_Tires]

198. Naturally...Because all those cases are 100% exactly alike

Snowden has no plans whatsoever to face trial, so it's useless to mention him...

Sterling's beef should be with his attorneys, if they were so inept that they couldn't sway *ONE* juror with reasonable doubt...