Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT; Obama is already toughest president on leaks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
nmbluesky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:27 AM
Original message
NYT; Obama is already toughest president on leaks
More prosecutions sought in 17 months than any previous administration

WASHINGTON - Hired in 2001 by the National Security Agency to help it catch up with the e-mail and cellphone revolution, Thomas A. Drake became convinced that the government’s eavesdroppers were squandering hundreds of millions of dollars on failed programs while ignoring a promising alternative.

He took his concerns everywhere inside the secret world: to his bosses, to the agency’s inspector general, to the Defense Department’s inspector general and to the Congressional intelligence committees. But he felt his message was not getting through.

So he contacted a reporter for The Baltimore Sun.
Today, because of that decision, Mr. Drake, 53, a veteran intelligence bureaucrat who collected early computers, faces years in prison on 10 felony charges involving the mishandling of classified information and obstruction of justice.

The indictment of Mr. Drake was the latest evidence that the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks.

Plugging leaks
In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.

Mr. Drake was charged in April; in May, an F.B.I. translator was sentenced to 20 months in prison for providing classified documents to a blogger; this week, the Pentagon confirmed the arrest of a 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of passing a classified video of an American military helicopter shooting Baghdad civilians to the Web site Wikileaks.org.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has renewed a subpoena in a case involving an alleged leak of classified information on a bungled attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program that was described in “State of War,” a 2006 book by James Risen. The author is a reporter for The New York Times. And several press disclosures since Mr. Obama took office have been referred to the Justice Department for investigation, officials said, though it is uncertain whether they will result in criminal cases.

As secret programs proliferated after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, were outspoken in denouncing press disclosures about the C.I.A.’s secret prisons and brutal interrogation techniques, and the security agency’s eavesdropping inside the United States without warrants.

Investigation's roots
In fact, Mr. Drake initially drew the attention of investigators because the government believed he might have been a source for the December 2005 article in The Times that revealed the wiretapping program.

Describing for the first time the scale of the Bush administration’s hunt for the sources of The Times article, former officials say 5 prosecutors and 25 F.B.I. agents were assigned to the case. The homes of three other security agency employees and a Congressional aide were searched before investigators raided Mr. Drake’s suburban house in November 2007. By then, a series of articles by Siobhan Gorman in The Baltimore Sun had quoted N.S.A. insiders about the agency’s billion-dollar struggles to remake its lagging technology, and panicky intelligence bosses spoke of a “culture of leaking.”

Though the inquiries began under President Bush, it has fallen to Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to decide whether to prosecute. They have shown no hesitation, even though Mr. Drake is not accused of disclosing the N.S.A.’s most contentious program, that of eavesdropping without warrants.

The Drake case epitomizes the politically charged debate over secrecy and democracy in a capital where the watchdog press is an institution even older than the spy bureaucracy, and where every White House makes its own calculated disclosures of classified information to reporters.

Obama outraged
Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, who has long tracked the uneasy commerce in secrets between government officials and the press, said Mr. Drake might have fallen afoul of a bipartisan sense in recent years that leaks have gotten out of hand and need to be deterred. By several accounts, Mr. Obama has been outraged by some leaks, too.

“I think this administration, like every other administration, is driven to distraction by leaking,” Mr. Aftergood said. “And Congress wants a few scalps, too. On a bipartisan basis, they want these prosecutions to proceed.”

Though he is charged under the Espionage Act, Mr. Drake appears to be a classic whistle-blower whose goal was to strengthen the N.S.A.’s ability to catch terrorists, not undermine it. His alleged revelations to Ms. Gorman focused not on the highly secret intelligence the security agency gathers but on what he viewed as its mistaken decisions on costly technology programs called Trailblazer, Turbulence and ThinThread.

“The Baltimore Sun stories simply confirmed that the agency was ineptly managed in some respects,” said Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian and author of “The Secret Sentry,” a history of the N.S.A. Such revelations hardly damaged national security, Mr. Aid said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gotta wonder who really runs this country. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't wonder anymore. Nothing is as it seems on Corporate M$M, that much is clear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wish they were talking about oil leaks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Where's your link?
You post more than the rules allow and no link.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nmbluesky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. link here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks. This is why I'm not the least bit concerned about this.
A spokesman for the Justice Department, Matthew A. Miller, said the Drake case was not intended to deter government employees from reporting problems. “Whistle-blowers are the key to many, many department investigations — we don’t retaliate against them, we encourage them,” Mr. Miller said. “This indictment was brought on the merits, and nothing else.”

Though Mr. Obama began his presidency with a pledge of transparency, his aides have warned of a crackdown on leakers. In a November speech, the top lawyer for the intelligence agencies, Robert S. Litt, decried “leaks of classified information that have caused specific and identifiable losses of intelligence capabilities.” He promised action “in the coming months.”

Prosecutions like those of Mr. Drake; the F.B.I. translator, Shamai Leibowitz; and potentially Specialist Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst, who has not yet been charged, have only a handful of precedents in American history. Among them are the cases of Daniel Ellsberg, a Defense Department consultant who gave the Pentagon Papers to The Times in 1971, and Samuel L. Morison, a Navy analyst who passed satellite photographs to Jane’s Defense Weekly in 1984.

Under President Bush, no one was convicted for disclosing secrets directly to the press. But Lawrence A. Franklin, a Defense Department official, served 10 months of home detention for sharing classified information with officials of a pro-Israel lobbying group, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., a top aide to Mr. Cheney, was convicted of perjury for lying about his statements to journalists about an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson.


People were outraged that no one was prosecuted for the leaks during the Bush administration. This is not the way the government should operate. As stated above, this has nothing to do with deterring whistleblowers.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Doublespeak at its finest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. At least they're backing up their words with actions

Health Care Bill Enhances Whistleblower Protections

As part of the anti-fraud provisions of the health care legislation passed yesterday, Congress strengthened the False Claims Act - one of the most effective whistleblower laws in the United States - in order to ensure that whistleblowers can expose fraud under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Lindsey Williams, Advocacy Director at the National Whistleblowers Center, explained the whistleblower provisions incorporated into the health care law: "The bill directly addresses the right of whistleblowers to obtain protection under the False Claims Act. A number of courts had significantly narrowed the interpretation of 'whistleblower' under the law, resulting in a chilling effect on employees' willingness to risk their careers to expose fraud against the taxpayers. The health care legislation passed by Congress contains a much-needed provision correcting these narrow, anti-whistleblower rulings."

The legislation also ensures that the False Claims Act anti-fraud provisions will apply to the "exchanges" established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if they use federal funds. Additionally, the False Claims Act is strengthened regarding failure to return overpayments and includes greater anti-kickback provisions.

"Regardless of where you stood on the health care debate, this is a major step forward for fraud prevention and ensures that whistleblowers, who risk their careers to expose fraud in the new health care system and by large pharmaceutical companies, won't have their cases maliciously thrown out of court," added Ms. Williams.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Nope, that's still talk
Showing that whistleblowers (such as the brave man who exposed that awful video of the atrocity in Iraq) is being prosecuted. That's action in direct conflict with the words. But I've come to believe that with this administration, it matters not one whit what they say, it's what they do that I judge them by. And they have a few things I can laud them for. But too many things are not that way. This is as secretive an administration as the last one but they said they would bring transparency. And so on, and so on and fucking so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Oh yeah, what the hell does the whitsleblowers organization know.?
You're the expert.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Am I? Wow, that's neat.
I have been a whistleblower twice and both times it cost me my job. That hardly makes me an expert but it does make me feel pretty invested in how whistleblowers should be treated.

This man is a patriot, the likes of which no teabagger shall ever see (no, I'm not calling you a teabagger) and he's being prosecuted for it. Not cool. Not even remotely okay. But, as all whistleblowers know, much is said about protection for truth telling and little but retaliation actually occurs. He knew if he was found out, he would be prosecuted to send a message to others who might try to uncover atrocities like this, like what happened at Abu Ghraib. But still he did it. Most people wouldn't have. He is a hero in my book. And I have a hard time seeing how he wouldn't be a hero to everyone who wants transparency about what happened in Iraq and what is happening now in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. "I have been a whistleblower twice and both times it cost me my job. "
Yet you're writing off increased protections under the law as talk?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yes, because the actions observed in this specific case are
different from the words. I've stopped listening to the words of this administration because the actions tell the true story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. More SPIN. One is a law about healthcare spending. The other is Military
If it were true what you said about whistleblowers than the person who leaked the video of Civilian Photographers being killed would be protected.

Another 1984 doublespeak response. There are *limited* protections created for *specific* areas while cracking down on transparancy in others. That is COMPLETELY not traditional Democratic and Progressive ideas. But then I would not expect propagandists to admit that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Hmmm
You're comparing Rove and Cheney outing a CIA agent to a low level military person letting us know that atrocities are being done in our name? You must be really bendy because that's quite the pretzel of logic you just put yourself into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Oh please.
"You must be really bendy because that's quite the pretzel of logic you just put yourself into."

Such rebuttals only indicate that a person has nothing to argue and instead must resort to snark.

"You're comparing Rove and Cheney outing a CIA agent to a low level military person letting us know that atrocities are being done in our name?"

No, I'm pointing out that the claim that the administration is tougher than others is silly because the Bush administration prosecuted no one. They spent all their time damaging people's reputations and jeopardizing national security with leaks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. This is an inappropriate use of prosecution
It is meant to intimidate whistleblowers. To say otherwise requires an extreme bending of facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
24. ROFL.
What a fuckin surprise!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. The Obama DOJ is fully dedicated to protecting the status quo and Bush war criminals
It pretends to encourage whistleblowing but that is only a pretense, as so many other Obama administration statements are pretenses; obviously the results speak for themselves -- crimes are swept under the rug while truth revealers are prosecuted, because the Obama administration is as corrupt as t Bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
18. Too bad somebody didn't leak BP's crappy safety record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
20. So there IS something Obama is willing to get tough on. Take that, haters!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
22. Punish the whistleblowers
Let the torturers and lying president go scot-free.

He's like any other president. He doesn't want any leakers. Leaks can only embarrass him. Like how many barrels of oil have actually been leaking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
25. State Department assessing damage from cables leak
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 05:00 AM by ProSense

State Department assessing damage from cables leak

WASHINGTON – The State Department says it is studying the computer hard drives used by an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq, trying to assess the potential damage if allegations are true that the analyst leaked tens of thousands of classified diplomatic documents to a whistle-blower website.

Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Friday that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security is assisting in the forensic analysis of the data stored on one or more hard drives from computers believed to have been used by Army Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md.

Manning, who has not been charged with any crime, is being detained in Kuwait pending an Army criminal investigation of unauthorized leaks of classified information.

"We take this seriously," Crowley said. "Any release of classified material to those who are not entitled to have it is a serious breach of our security and, you know, can cause potential damage to our national security interests."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC