All Discussions Tagged 'Manning' - 12160 Social Network2024-03-29T07:33:05Zhttps://12160.info/forum/topic/listForTag?groupUrl=dead-men-talking&tag=Manning&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAdvice for Whistleblowers and Journalists from an NSA Spy and Snowden's Lawyertag:12160.info,2016-02-11:2649739:Topic:16121922016-02-11T01:58:05.423ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<p></p>
<br />
<div class="media"><div class="lede-image-container"><img alt="" class="media-lede-image media-desktop-lede" src="http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/article/no-id/1422892768847105.jpg?crop=1xw:0.4826629680998613xh;*,*&resize=2300:*&output-format=jpeg&output-quality=90"></img></div>
<p></p>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="wrapper"><h1 class="article-title">Advice for Whistleblowers and Journalists from an NSA Spy and Snowden's Lawyer…</h1>
<br />
<div class="author-info image"><div class="article-media-overlay"></div>
<a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/author/DJPangburn"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/aUcCfkl7Ox5gbROukrW94wQbvbmq3I_H4C8xNM9gTXPKlWk0QOnUH1DG-ljWq2p0eV61haZcg5Fm9AI7RBF7JX7iwkXHhETKRyq6YQ=s300-c"></img></a></div>
<div class="author-info hasImage"></div>
<div class="author-info hasImage"></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<br />
<div class="media"><div class="lede-image-container"><img src="http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/article/no-id/1422892768847105.jpg?crop=1xw:0.4826629680998613xh;*,*&resize=2300:*&output-format=jpeg&output-quality=90" class="media-lede-image media-desktop-lede" alt=""/></div>
<p></p>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="wrapper"><h1 class="article-title">Advice for Whistleblowers and Journalists from an NSA Spy and Snowden's Lawyer</h1>
<br />
<div class="author-info image"><div class="article-media-overlay"></div>
<a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/author/DJPangburn"><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/aUcCfkl7Ox5gbROukrW94wQbvbmq3I_H4C8xNM9gTXPKlWk0QOnUH1DG-ljWq2p0eV61haZcg5Fm9AI7RBF7JX7iwkXHhETKRyq6YQ=s300-c"/></a></div>
<div class="author-info hasImage"></div>
<div class="author-info hasImage"></div>
<div class="author-info hasImage">February 2, 2015 // 11:10 AM EST</div>
<br />
<div class="ad-sponsored-by motherboard-portlet-about"></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="wrapper article-content-wrapper"><div class="left-column article-left-column"><div class="article-scroll-wrapper"><a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/advice-for-whistleblowers-and-journalists-from-an-nsa-spy-and-snowdens-lawyer#" class="social-facebook sharing-item"></a><a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/advice-for-whistleblowers-and-journalists-from-an-nsa-spy-and-snowdens-lawyer#" class="social-twitter sharing-item"></a><a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/advice-for-whistleblowers-and-journalists-from-an-nsa-spy-and-snowdens-lawyer#" class="social-pinterest sharing-item"></a><a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/advice-for-whistleblowers-and-journalists-from-an-nsa-spy-and-snowdens-lawyer#" class="social-tumblr sharing-item"></a>
<div class="popup-hover right tooltip" id="copy-button"><a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/advice-for-whistleblowers-and-journalists-from-an-nsa-spy-and-snowdens-lawyer#" class="social-link sharing-item"></a><div class="popup"><div class="popup-wrap"><div class="copy-text"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="article-content rich-text"><p>There's no playbook for leaking evidence of state and corporate wrongdoing. But with the <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/">uptick in whistleblower prosecutions</a> by the US government, there probably should be.</p>
<p>For now, studying past whistleblowers, from Daniel Ellsberg to Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, is a good place to start. Some whistleblowers, like former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake and former US Department of Justice ethics adviser Jesselyn Radack (now Snowden's lawyer), have shown themselves willing to offer instruction.</p>
<p>Drake and Radack, who appeared at the Berlin <a href="http://transmediale.de/">Transmediale festival's CAPTURE ALL</a>event to discuss the documentary <a href="http://nakededgefilms.com/films/silenced/"><em>Silenced</em></a>, spoke to me about the challenges facing future whistleblowers and journalists. While they didn't lay out a precise playbook, they did offer advice on how whistleblowers and journalists can better protect themselves.</p>
<p>For Radack, it starts with understanding the Espionage Act. While <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917">the 1917 law</a> was initially designed to protect against spies, not whistleblowers, the US government has taken to claiming that the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism">leaking of classified information is equivalent of espionage</a>. Espionage Act prosecutions under President Obama, in Radack's estimation, have created a “backdoor war on journalists” and an “unofficial way to create an official secrets act,” which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989">exists in the United Kingdom</a> but not in the US. Educating whistleblowers and the journalists who work with them is of the utmost importance to Radack.</p>
<p class="has-image"><img class="vmp-image" src="http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1422892575192414.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p class="photo-credit">Image: Grey Hutton/Vice</p>
<p>“A lot of people come to me after they blow the whistle and are being retaliated against,” Radack said. “My advice would be seek a lawyer, get lawyered up, before you blow the whistle. Also, there are now encryption protocols [<a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/aaron-swartz-inbox-for-whistleblowers-is-back-with-an-nsa-proof-makeover">like SecureDrop</a>] that let you blow the whistle in a much safer way.”</p>
<p>After being shrugged off by NSA superiors, <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/leaks-and-the-law-the-story-of-thomas-drake-14796786/?page=3&no-ist">Drake contacted the Baltimore Sun's Siobhan Gorman</a> in 2010, eventually blowing the whistle on the NSA's violations of Americans' electronic communications privacy with the Trailblazer project. And, back in 2002, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/lindh-case-e-mails-146037">Radack revealed an FBI ethics violation</a> that occurred when John Walker Lindh—an American citizen captured in Afghanistan as an “enemy combatant”—was interrogated without a lawyer present.</p>
<p>Drake said he would have gone to the press a lot sooner instead of running into NSA stonewalling tactics. But he cautioned that publicizing state crime is no simple task for whistleblowers and journalists.</p>
<p>“It becomes absolutely crucial for the press and media, when they have a very sensitive source, that they must absolutely protect that source at all costs,” Drake said. “I know what mechanisms I went through. I actually had to instruct a particular reporter in how to even set up encryption, how to use encryption, and all of the means I had to use to protect the encryption I used.”</p>
<p>As Drake sees it, journalists still don't fully appreciate the extent of surveillance. "They're actually putting their sources in danger,” he said. “And, as we've seen in the United States, the government is more than willing to use incredibly heavy prosecution, up to and including the Espionage Act, to go after the sources for the very critical kinds of information the public needs to know.”</p>
<p class="has-image"><img class="vmp-image" src="http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1422892608737789.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p class="photo-credit">Thomas Drake. Image: Grey Hutton/Vice</p>
<p>The journalism community as a whole has placed more importance on of secure communications, especially following the Snowden leaks and increased emphasis in journalism schools. But Radack said many journalists still don't see the necessity of encryption.</p>
<p>“[T]here is a huge bloc of journalists that are resistant to it, and I think at that point it becomes incumbent upon people who would like to blow the whistle to say, 'I would like to tell you, but in order to keep me safe you need to use protection, and insist on it the way Edward Snowden did with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras,” Radack said. “He walked them through how to do encryption.”</p>
<p>“Should that ideally have to be the case that the burden is on the whistleblower?” Radack continued. “No, but if people don't want to get burned or caught, then again I think it would be in the journalist's advantage to learn how to use encryption, and good old-fashioned ways of reporting such as meeting in person, paying in cash, taking cryptic notes, and being careful not to do anything that could burden your source.”</p>
<p>The analog approach is often forgotten, and Drake emphasized the paradox of the current digital age: the very use of electronic communication leaves “digital prompts,” even if messages have been encrypted. When Drake ultimately decided to go to a reporter, he made direct contact.</p>
<p>“It turned out that at that point in time, given the kind of surveillance that I was under, it was safer to make physical contact even from the Watergate Era of meeting in the equivalent of a parking garage,” he said. But, establishing that first contact is problematic.</p>
<p>“It's <em>extremely</em> challenging—that's a whole conversation in itself that I lived over a number of months,” Drake said. “How do I make contact with a reporter who has no means of encryption and I do, and how do I make it so that reporter has no idea who I am? And this was before any of these things called SecureDrop or electronic dropboxes. This was before WikiLeaks.”</p>
<p class="has-image"><img class="vmp-image" src="http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1422892678391160.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p class="photo-credit">Jesselyn Radack. Image: Grey Hutton/Flickr</p>
<p>“WikiLeaks is a model, by the way, in terms of how do you protect a source,” Drake added. “They have cut all kinds of precedent in this space that never existed before [in] recognizing those critical dangers. You can't just make direct contact, that's part of the problem. But, if you choose to do so, how do you? And, remember, a lot of stuff gets spammed, and maybe it's a false flag—this happens.”</p>
<p>Both Drake and Radack successfully fought government prosecution. Other whistleblowers haven't been so lucky, including CIA case officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was recently sentenced for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/05/energy.g2">leaking information on Operation Merlin</a>, an effort to delay development of Iran's nuclear reactor. Caught up in Sterling's case was New York Times reporter James Risen, who recently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/us/times-reporter-james-risen-will-not-be-called-to-testify-in-leak-case-lawyers-say.html">concluded a seven-year legal</a> battle in a successful bid to avoid testifying about his source.</p>
<p>Drake pointed to Sterling's recent prosecution under the Espionage Act as a cautionary tale. The evidence linking Sterling to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Risen">Risen</a> was, Drake said, “totally circumstantial.”</p>
<p>“They never presented in the courtroom actual proof, real evidence, that the CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling ever actually provided the very things that the government alleged he did with the New York Times reporter James Risen,” Drake said. “It simply was metadata that there had been emails and phone calls between the two of them in a very short period of time—a designated period of time. That was apparently proof enough.”</p>
<p>“They tried to basically kabuki dance the venue in which the criminal act actually took place,” said Drake. “At one point they even argued, although that ended up as front page news, that the witness to the crime was the reporter; that's why they had to bring the reporter [Risen] into the courtroom.”</p>
<p>For some would-be whistleblowers and journalists this could be a cause for concern. But Drake and Radack believe the two forces are vital checks on legislative and executive power. Both recommend going to the press early, though methods might very from whistleblower to whistleblower.</p>
<p>Some may follow Snowden's lead and walk journalists through the encryption process. Others may choose to deal only with journalists comfortable with encrypted communication, or use SecureDrop and other whistleblower submission systems. Still others may adopt Drake's <em>All the President's Men </em>approach, with in-person first contact followed by encrypted messaging. In any case, it's clear that without secure channels, potential whistleblowers are likely to shy away from releasing leaks.</p>
<p></p>
<br />
<div class="author-info hasImage"></div>
<div class="author-info hasImage">Written by <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/author/DJPangburn">DJ PANGBURN</a><h4>CONTRIBUTOR</h4>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</div>
<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<p></p> The REAL Reason U.S. Targets Whistleblowerstag:12160.info,2013-10-27:2649739:Topic:13466392013-10-27T15:53:24.081ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<p><strong>Hypocrisy as a Policy Tool</strong></p>
<p>U.S. leaders have long:</p>
<ul>
<li>Condemned China for <a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com//https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+condemns+china+spying&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=china%20hacks%20united%20states&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">spying and hacking our computers</a> … But the Snowden leaks…</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Hypocrisy as a Policy Tool</strong></p>
<p>U.S. leaders have long:</p>
<ul>
<li>Condemned China for <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com//https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+condemns+china+spying&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=china%20hacks%20united%20states&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial">spying and hacking our computers</a> … But the Snowden leaks show that America is <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-hypocrisy-china-summit-surveillance">doing the same thing</a> — on a <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/proof-that-nsa-spying-is-not-really-focused-on-terrorism.html">much larger scale</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Considered <a rel="nofollow" title="The United States has always considered waterboarding to be a crime of torture, including when the Japanese did it in WWII" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html">waterboarding to be a war crime and a form of torture, including when the Japanese did it in WWII</a> (and see <a rel="nofollow" title="this" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100705024802/http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf" target="_blank">this</a>). But when we did it, we insisted it was <em>not</em> torture</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Proselytized other countries to follow free market capitalism. But we <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/fed-president-too-big-banks-are-just-crony-capitalists.html">no longer follow free market capitalism in America</a>. Instead, we have <a rel="nofollow" title="socialism for the rich and sink-or-swim " target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/capitalism-socialism-or-fascism.html">socialism for the rich and sink-or-swim</a> <a rel="nofollow" title="capitalism" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/capitalism-socialism-or-fascism.html">capitalism</a> for everyone else. Whether you call it <a rel="nofollow" title="socialist or fascist state" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/capitalism-socialism-or-fascism.html">crony capitalism, fascism, communist style socialism</a>, <a rel="nofollow" title="kleptocracy" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/82-of-americans-clamp-down-on-wall.html">kleptocracy</a>, <a rel="nofollow" title="oligarchy" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/zandi-the-oligopoly-has-tightened.html">oligarchy</a> or <a rel="nofollow" title="banana republic" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/04/banana-republic-with-no-bananas.html">banana republicanism … it ain’t real capitalism</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Labeled indiscriminate killing of civilians as terrorism. Yet the American military <a rel="nofollow" title="this" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html">indiscriminately kills innocent civilians</a> (and see <a rel="nofollow" title="whose identity isn’t even known" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet">this</a>), calling it “carefully targeted strikes”. For example, when Al Qaeda, Syrians or others target people attending funerals of those killed – or those attempting to rescue people who have been injured by – previous attacks, we rightfully label it terrorism. But the U.S. government does <a rel="nofollow" title="killing people attending funerals of those killed – and targeting people attempting to rescue people who have been injured by – our previous strikes" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.salon.com/2012/08/07/unrestrained_savagery/"><em>exactly</em> the same thing</a> (<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com//https://www.google.com/search?q=american+drones+%22double+tap%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">more</a>)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Lambasted those who do not follow the rule of law as tin-pot tyrannies. But the rule of law has <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/america-no-longer-has-a-functioning-judiciary.html">broken down in America</a>, and we have justice has become a <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/americans-have-less-access-to-justice-than-botswanans-and-are-more-abused-by-police-than-kazakhstanis.html">less access to justice than in many parts of the world</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Blasted oppressive regimes which do not allow free speech, a free press and other liberties for their people … But have <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/americans-have-lost-virtually-all-of-our-constitutional-rights.html">discarded most of those same liberties in our homeland</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Scolded tyrants who launch aggressive wars to grab power or plunder resources. But we’ve launched a series of wars for <a rel="nofollow" title="the Iraq war was about oil" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/top-republican-leaders-say-iraq-war-was-really-for-oil.html">oil</a> (and <a rel="nofollow" title="show the same thing" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html">here</a>) and <a rel="nofollow" title="fight for natural gas" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-wars-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-are-not-just-about-oil-theyre-also-about-gas.html">gas</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Said that those who support terrorists should be treated as terrorists. But the U.S. government has <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html">long supported</a> terrorists for <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/the-u-s-is-supporting-the-most-violent-muslim-terrorists-in-order-to-wage-war-for-oil.html">cynical political purposes.</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Sought to “spread democracy” around the world. But have refused to <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/former-president-and-commander-in-chief-america-is-no-longer-a-democracy.html">honor it at home</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Said that we must stamp out terrorism. But we are doing <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ism-noun-when-other-people-do-what-we-do.html">the exact same things</a> we accuse the terrorists of doing (<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/experts-from-the-left-and-the-right-agree-america-is-running-the-worlds-largest-terrorist-operation.html">or worse)</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Can you spot a pattern of <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/the-issue-isnt-only-more-spying-or-less-its-also-hypocrisy-versus-honesty.html">hypocrisy</a>?</p>
<p>Indeed, the <strong><em>worse</em></strong> the acts by officials who do not respect the law, the <strong><em>more</em></strong> they say we it must be covered up … for “the good of the country”.</p>
<p>For example, Elizabeth Goitein – co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice – <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/17/government-secrecyoverclassificationmohammedalqhatani.html">writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The government has begun to advance bold new justifications for classifying information that threaten to erode the principled limits that have existed — in theory, if not always in practice — for decades. The cost of these efforts, if they remain unchecked, may be the American public’s ability to hold its government accountable.</p>
<p>***</p>
</blockquote>
<div><blockquote><p>The government acknowledged that it possessed mug shots, videos depicting forcible extractions of al-Qahtani from his cell and videos documenting various euphemistically termed “intelligence debriefings of al-Qahtani.” It argued that all of these images were properly classified and withheld from the public — but <strong>not because they would reveal sensitive intelligence methods</strong>, the traditional justification for classifying such information. The government did not stake its case on this time-tested argument perhaps because the details of al-Qahtani’s interrogations have been officially disclosed through agency reports and congressional hearings. Instead, the government argued that the images could be shielded from disclosure because the Taliban and associated forces have previously used photos of U.S. forces “interacting with detainees” to garner support for attacks against those forces. Even more broadly, the government asserted that disclosure could aid in the “recruitment and financing of extremists and insurgent groups.”</p>
<p>***</p>
</blockquote>
<div><blockquote><p>The government’s argument echoed a similar claim it made in a lawsuit earlier this year over a FOIA request for postmortem photographs of Osama bin Laden. A CIA official attested that these images could “aid the production of anti-American propaganda,” noting that images of abuse at Abu Ghraib had been “very effective” in helping Al-Qaeda to recruit supporters and raise funds. The appeals court did not address this argument, however, resting its <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1631732.html">decision</a> on the narrower ground that these particular images were likely to incite immediate violence.</p>
<p>The judge in al-Qahtani’s case showed no such restraint. She held that the photos and videos were properly classified because “it (is) both logical and plausible that extremists would utilize images of al-Qahtani … to incite anti-American sentiment, to raise funds, and/or to recruit other loyalists.” When CCR pointed out that this result was speculative, the judge responded that “it is bad law and bad policy to second-guess the predictive judgments made by the government’s intelligence agencies.” In short, <strong>the government may classify information, not because that information reveals tactical or operational secrets but because the conduct it reveals could in theory anger existing enemies or create new ones.</strong></p>
<p>This approach is alarming in part because it has no limiting principle. The reasons why people choose to align themselves against the United States — or any other country — are nearly as numerous and varied as the people themselves. Our support for Israel is considered a basis for enmity by some. <strong>May the government classify the aid we provide to other nations? May it classify our trade policies on the basis that they may breed resentment among the populations of some countries, thus laying the groundwork for future hostile relations? May it classify our history of involvement in armed conflicts across the globe because that history may function as “anti-American propaganda” in some quarters?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<div><blockquote><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Perhaps even more disturbing, this justification for secrecy will be strongest when the U.S. government’s conduct most clearly violates accepted international norms.</strong></em></span> Evidence of human rights abuses against foreign nationals, for instance, is particularly likely to spark hostility abroad. Indeed, the judge in the al-Qahtani FOIA case noted that “the written record of (al-Qahtani’s) torture may make it all the more likely that enemy forces would use al-Qahtani’s image against the United States” — citing this fact as a reason to uphold classification.</p>
<p>Using the impropriety of the government’s actions as a justification for secrecy is the very antithesis of accountability. <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>To prevent this very outcome, the <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1631732.html">executive order</a> that governs classification forbids classifying a document to “conceal violations of law” or to “prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.”</strong></span> However, a federal judge in 2008 <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aclu102908.pdf">interpreted</a> this provision to allow classification of information revealing misconduct if there is a valid security reason for the nondisclosure. Together, this ruling and the judge’s opinion in the al-Qahtani FOIA case eviscerate the executive order’s prohibition: <strong>The government can always argue that it classified evidence of wrongdoing because the information could be used as “anti-American propaganda” by our adversaries.</strong></p>
<p>Human rights advocates cannot rely on al-Qahtani to tell us what the photos and videos would reveal. <strong>The government <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.propublica.org/article/classified-in-gitmo-trials-detainees-every-word">asserts</a> that his own knowledge of what occurred at Guantánamo</strong> — knowledge he gained, not through privileged access to government documents but through his personal experience — <strong>is a state secret. The words that Guantánamo detainees speak, once transcribed by their attorneys, are “presumptively classified,” and the government determines which of those words, if any, may be released</strong>. Legally, the government <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information">may classify</a> only information that is “owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government.” Because the detainees are under the government’s control, so, apparently, are the contents of their memory.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s why high-level CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou was <a rel="nofollow" title="prosecuted him for espionage" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou#Whistleblowing_on_torture">prosecuted him for espionage</a> after he blew the whistle on illegal CIA torture.*</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Obviously, the government wants to stop whistleblowers because they interfere with the government’s ability to <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/government-protects-criminals-by-prosecuting-whistleblower-who-expose-wrongdoing.html">act in an unaccountable manner</a>. As Glenn Greenwald <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/27/obama-war-on-whistleblowers-purpose">writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>It should not be difficult to understand why the Obama administration is so fixated on intimidating whistleblowers and going far beyond any prior administration – including those of the secrecy-obsessed Richard Nixon and George W Bush – to plug all leaks. It’s because those methods are the only ones preventing the US government from doing whatever it wants in complete secrecy and without any accountability of any kind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But whistleblowers also interfere with the government’s ability to get away with hypocrisy. As two political science professors from George Washington University (Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore) show, the government is so hell-bent to punish Manning and Snowden because their leaks <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140155/henry-farrell-and-martha-finnemore/the-end-of-hypocrisy#">are putting an end to the ability of the US to use <em>hypocrisy as a weapon</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. establishment has often struggled to explain exactly why these leakers [Manning, Snowden, etc.] pose such an enormous threat.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>***</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The deeper threat that leakers such as Manning and Snowden pose is more subtle than a direct assault on U.S. national security: they <strong>undermine Washington’s ability to act hypocritically and get away with it</strong>. <strong>Their danger lies not in the new information that they reveal but in the documented confirmation they provide of what the United States is actually doing and why. When these deeds turn out to clash with the government’s public rhetoric, as they so often do, it becomes harder for U.S. allies to overlook Washington’s covert behavior</strong> and easier for U.S. adversaries to justify their own.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>As the United States finds itself less able to deny the gaps between its actions and its words, it will face increasingly difficult choices — and may ultimately be compelled to start practicing what it preaches. <strong>Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power — its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions</strong> — yet few Americans appreciate its role.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>American commitments to the rule of law, democracy, and free trade are embedded in the multilateral institutions that the country helped establish after World War II, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and later the World Trade Organization. Despite recent challenges to U.S. preeminence, from the Iraq war to the financial crisis, the international order remains an American one. <strong>This system needs the lubricating oil of hypocrisy to keep its gears turning</strong>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Of course, the United States has gotten away with hypocrisy for some time now. It has long preached the virtues of nuclear nonproliferation, for example, and has coerced some states into abandoning their atomic ambitions. At the same time, it tacitly accepted Israel’s nuclearization and, in 2004, signed a formal deal affirming India’s right to civilian nuclear energy despite its having flouted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by acquiring nuclear weapons. In a similar vein, Washington talks a good game on democracy, yet it stood by as the Egyptian military overthrew an elected government in July, refusing to call a coup a coup. Then there’s the “war on terror”: Washington pushes foreign governments hard on human rights but claims sweeping exceptions for its own behavior when it feels its safety is threatened.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>Manning’s and Snowden’s leaks mark the beginning of a new era in which the U.S. government can no longer count on keeping its secret behavior secret. Hundreds of thousands of Americans today have access to classified documents that would embarrass the country if they were publicly circulated. As the recent revelations show, in the age of the cell-phone camera and the flash drive, even the most draconian laws and reprisals will not prevent this information from leaking out. As a result, Washington faces what can be described as an <strong>accelerating hypocrisy collapse — a dramatic narrowing of the country’s room to maneuver between its stated aspirations and its sometimes sordid pursuit of self-interest</strong>. The U.S. government, its friends, and its foes can no longer plausibly deny the dark side of U.S. foreign policy and will have to address it head-on.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>The era of easy hypocrisy is over.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The professors note that the government has several options for dealing with ongoing leaks. They conclude that the best would be for the government to actually do what it says.</p>
<p>What a novel idea …</p>
<p><em>* That may be why Guantanamo is really being kept open … and even prisoners that <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com//https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+admits+innocent+guantanamo+prisoners&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">the U.S. government admits are innocent</a> are still being held: to cover up the <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/bipartisan-report-u-s-practiced-widespread-torture-torture-has-no-jusification-and-doesnt-yield-significant-information-nations-highest-officials-bear-responsibility.html">widespread torture</a> by keeping the evidence (the prisoners themselves) in a dungeon away from the light of day.</em></p>
<p><br/><br/>Source: <a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/the-real-reason-u-s-targets-whistleblowers.html">http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/the-real-reason-u-s-targets-whistleblowers.html</a></p>