Even the Washington Post gets it. In its article on the criminal charges brought against Army intelligence analyst Pfc. Bradley Manning, the sub-headline to the article reads:
U.S. Taking Tough Line on Leaks.
The opening paragraph states that the military charging Bradley Manning
is likely to further deter would-be whistleblowers.
I don't care if it's Bush or Obama at the helm. The biggest crimes of our generation--torture, warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition--would not have come to light but for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. For the hand-wringing "but we can't willy-nilly reveal classified information" crowd, do you think Abu Ghraib wasn't classified?
We are told (though there has been not a shred of evidence other than the government saying this, and even the charges do not reflect this number) that Manning gave some 250,000 classified State Department cables to Wikileaks.org. But all we really KNOW is that the website published a horrific video of an American helicopter massacring unarmed Iraqi civilians and cheering on each other as if it were a video game.
And the former senior National Security Agency (NSA) official Thomas Drake? The party line is that he "leaked" classified material to a newspaper. If you read the indictment, he has really been indicted under the Espionage Act, a 93-year-old law meant to catch spies, for allegedly "retaining" classified information. What the government is really mad about is that an article appeared in the Baltimore Sun describing how and why the NSA opted for an invasive surveillance program called "Trailblazer" over on that could more adequately collect the necessary information without violating people's privacy.
Short of killing someone (think Karen Silkwood, and more recently, of the "worldwide manhunt" for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange launched by the Pentagon), this is the worst, and increasingly popular, form of retaliation that can be taken against a whistleblower: criminal prosecution for revealing the truth--which in both the Manning and Drake cases did no harm to national security, but instead committed the far worse "crime" of embarrassing the government. In fact, both these men were trying to expose conduct they thought, and that was, criminal.
I urge you to "like" the Save Tom Drake page on Facebook and to check out the Help Bradley Manning website.
The essence of Government is power; and power, ledged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
-- James Madison
Jesselyn Radack is the Homeland Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization. This article was cross-posted from her Daily Kos diary.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
1) Reuters news agency, along with several other media organizations, tried to obtain the Iraq video via FOI, and were stonewalled repeatedly by the U.S government. Reuters was likely to be seeking the video to conduct its own internal investigation as two of its employee died in the incident (shown in the video).
2) David Finkel of the Washington Post also had the Iraq video in his possession (from his 2007 embed stint with the U.S. Army) for +1 year before finally discussing it publicly in his own published book. However, this seemed to go relatively unnoticed by the greater public. With video there for all to see, a galvanized reaction is inevitable, and encourages debate which is essential to all democracy.
3) The Pentagon had investigated the incident at the time it happened, but never released the footage publicly. While it may or may not be their prerogative to broadcast their own mistakes, (especially as they officially ruled out any violation of rules of engagement), their reluctance to show this video as per the first point above would suggest they knew full well the actions in the video were technically excusable (to themselves) but morally reprehensible. You do not fire at children in a van, or shoot an unarmed man who is already clearly dying in the gutter. Had it been another army, this would be regarded as a war crime.
Thursday, 08 July 2010
whistleblowers are necessary, it is important that we get the right info since we really dont know what the governments are doing. I saw the attack of the two civilians, say, if that were americans shot by al queda or other groups that americans dont like, what would've have happened. US government talk about peace and helping other nations but it only do so if it is benefiting its own motive which is to control other countries.
we talk about democracy, i believe in democracy but as i see more and more of what this country is doing it is a far cry from democracy. when are we going to pull out of afghan, when are we going to stop irritating other countries. I find it difficult these days to understand how we can just send our young lives to fight for nothing. the kids will never return once they are dead....i rather put those military general on the front line and have them battle it out.
Mcchrystal may have pissed some people but he may held some truth about what is happening, i am bit ashamed of being an american while travelling overseas. i used to be proud of being an american, yet with this mishap and other deterring effects on war, economy, social lives and future of this country, i really feel that we as a people need to know what is going on within the government and make sure that the government is running for the people and not for the greed and egos of the politicians and big companies.
dn
Wednesday, 07 July 2010
I beg to differ with you. No nails in the coffin of whistleblowers. Think global (human rights law)...act local (federal government-model employer-WPA). The flaw lies in the opening paragraph ...military charging Bradley Manning is likely to further deter would-be whistleblowers. This alone is a shocking statement of willful arrogance and intent to violate the law. A resounding bell rung by bureaucrats and the government lawyers who defend illegal conduct. The statement is so profoundly egregious, it threatens the rule of law. The words are bullets that backfire. Remember the poem by Martin Niemoller...first they came for...no one left to speak for me...
Today, the Whistleblower Protection and No Fear Acts stand as enourmous failures. Truth telling is seen as betrayal. Exposing the truth has become a crime. Speakers of the truth face a moral and ethical dilemma only to have their own conduct subject to scrutiny. Speaking the truth to power should not be punished. Whistleblowers should not receive a public flogging. Exposing corruption should not be career suicide with life long consequences. Enormous amounts of money are spent each year focusing on those who speak the truth to power. Why? Because as a society, as tax payers, as citizens with a moral vested interest, we allow the government to shoot the messenger and then wait to see if the whistleblower is resuscitated by a court.
Shifting here to President Obama, he too faces an ethical dilemma. With so many systems of government and industry failing because of greed, corruption and flagrant disregard for the law, in 2010 the President must set the moral compass for this country. President Obama should remember President Lincoln made a decision to expose corruption in 1863 that put the country at risk and ultimately defrauded the American people. The emancipation proclamation and civil rights act of 1866 were the ground work. Whistleblowing is an natural progression and extension of civil rights. Without whistleblowers, we'd all be whistling dixie...
Wednesday, 07 July 2010
If you scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater a thousand times, for every time there is a fire -- you are a hero. But every time there isn't, you are a criminal.
You don't get a "free pass" on the harm/chaos/security-risk you caused just because you did the right thing once.
Wednesday, 07 July 2010
I support whistleblowers and I support the highest protections for them. I also support the leaking of this specific video in question.
However, this guy admitted to fairly indiscriminately releasing 260,000 classified documents thus breaching confidentiality agreements and completely compromising the security of the SIPRnet.
To believe that all the documents Manning released were government cover-ups is absurd -- and I love conspiracies. But no, this was a guy that was admittedly (and that's how he got caught) leaking tens of thousands of documents -- *one of which*, so far, appears to be a cover-up and I'm glad it was leaked.
But me being glad a specific video leaked does not mean I'm naive enough to believe any member of the government with privileged intelligence has a duty to make it publicly available. The world doesn't work like that, and it is completely childish and dishonest to spin it like it should be.
I would hope that a website called "whistleblower.org" would know the definition of "whistleblower." It most definitely is not, "a person who releases any information that they are not allowed to and sometimes it is worth being released."
The fact that WikiLeaks linked me to this blogpost pretty much puts the nail in their coffin for me and I will stop following them and start considering them more towards being the "Fox News" equivalent of information -- sometimes within the realm of truth, lucky every now and then, but often heavily biased with an agenda.