Whistle-blowers Virgins Volcanoes...Obama's Democracy
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
Re: Glen Greenwald's, 'What the whistle-blower prosecution says about the Obama DOJ'; Salon,
Apr. 16, 2010
Greenwald, as usual, scores good points regarding the Department of Justice indictment against
former Bush-era National Security Agency employee, and possible whistle-blower, Thomas Drake.
(Greenwald recommends this for more NSA background.)
Unlike under the current Obama administration, the Bush DoJ never went so far as to prosecute
whistle-blowers, even though they threatened to do so a few times. But the Obama DOJ is whole
hog on mowing whistle-blowers down, and - agree totally with Greenwald - how interesting the choice
of whom to nail: Drake. Mr. Drake allegedly wanted the American public to know that the NSA could
choose not to collect information on Americans, while still doing its job of collecting intelligence - but
that it opts defy constitutional protections, instead.
Still with Glen all the way, here: 'It's not hyperbole to say that Bush's decision to use the NSA to spy
domestically on American citizens was one of the most significant stories of this generation. It was
long recognized that turning the NSA inward was one of the greatest dangers to freedom...'.
No problem with Glen's take on the whole thing - except - for two things.
I am not sure I agree with the several assumptions and conclusions embodied in the set of statements
that Greenwald makes in the following:
'It's true that leaking classified information is a crime. That's what makes whistleblowers like Drake
so courageous. That's why Daniel Ellsberg -- who literally risked his liberty in an effort to help end
the Vietnam War -- is one of the 20th Century's genuine American heroes. And if political-related
crimes were punished equally, one could accept whistle-blower prosecutions even while questioning
the motives behind them and the priorities they reflect. But that's not the situation that prevails.'
First, I disagree with the blanket assertion that it is always illegal to whistle-blow on illegal activities of
the state, just because the state attempts to hide illegal activity by classifying it as 'state secrets' or
'classified' information.
Let's say the state, or, more precisely, high-up actors of the state, are acting illegally. The problem,
obviously, is that high-up state actors are in positions of power to abuse power (i.e.: creation of bogus
law.) Bad law is used to harass whistle-blowers to attempt to silence them. That does not necessarily
make it constitutionally legal anymore than it makes whistle-blowing, to try to protect the People from
abuse, illegal.
However, what it does mean is that there are no guarantees that the state is going to do the legal thing
or the right thing. It does not mean that a critical mass of responsible individuals within the halls of
power will do the responsible, the legal or the right thing and stand by you, either - this is the critical
and problematic point.
Yes, whistle-blowers are courageous, but it is not because what they choose to do is always
necessarily illegal; it is that the state has the ultimate power to abuse its power to try to shut you up
and/or try to make your life a living hell.
It follows that we do not accept as given that there must be a quid pro quo trade-off of accepting
punishment of the right-doing whistle-blower if only we could simultaneously get punishment of the
wrong-doing state actor - like the virgins-in-volcanoes superstitious belief that we get, only if we give.
Bending over backwards, begging for right to prevail and for state officials and politicians to be
prosecuted for high crimes (rather than demanding it) - even if it means sacrificing the best amongst
us, the whistle-blowers who risk everything for us? For what?! Sorry. It don't wash with me.
But in Twitter parlance still sending out lots of love Glen Greenwald's way - journalist without peer,
shining knight of the round table, defender of liberties par excellence.
Public Notice: Hey, all you ambitious, top-drawer lawyers out there, Thomas Drake is reportedly
tapped out and has had to have a public defender appointed for his defense.
You are welcome to comment on the above article on my blog, here
home
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
Re: Glen Greenwald's, 'What the whistle-blower prosecution says about the Obama DOJ'; Salon,
Apr. 16, 2010
Greenwald, as usual, scores good points regarding the Department of Justice indictment against
former Bush-era National Security Agency employee, and possible whistle-blower, Thomas Drake.
(Greenwald recommends this for more NSA background.)
Unlike under the current Obama administration, the Bush DoJ never went so far as to prosecute
whistle-blowers, even though they threatened to do so a few times. But the Obama DOJ is whole
hog on mowing whistle-blowers down, and - agree totally with Greenwald - how interesting the choice
of whom to nail: Drake. Mr. Drake allegedly wanted the American public to know that the NSA could
choose not to collect information on Americans, while still doing its job of collecting intelligence - but
that it opts defy constitutional protections, instead.
Still with Glen all the way, here: 'It's not hyperbole to say that Bush's decision to use the NSA to spy
domestically on American citizens was one of the most significant stories of this generation. It was
long recognized that turning the NSA inward was one of the greatest dangers to freedom...'.
No problem with Glen's take on the whole thing - except - for two things.
I am not sure I agree with the several assumptions and conclusions embodied in the set of statements
that Greenwald makes in the following:
'It's true that leaking classified information is a crime. That's what makes whistleblowers like Drake
so courageous. That's why Daniel Ellsberg -- who literally risked his liberty in an effort to help end
the Vietnam War -- is one of the 20th Century's genuine American heroes. And if political-related
crimes were punished equally, one could accept whistle-blower prosecutions even while questioning
the motives behind them and the priorities they reflect. But that's not the situation that prevails.'
First, I disagree with the blanket assertion that it is always illegal to whistle-blow on illegal activities of
the state, just because the state attempts to hide illegal activity by classifying it as 'state secrets' or
'classified' information.
Let's say the state, or, more precisely, high-up actors of the state, are acting illegally. The problem,
obviously, is that high-up state actors are in positions of power to abuse power (i.e.: creation of bogus
law.) Bad law is used to harass whistle-blowers to attempt to silence them. That does not necessarily
make it constitutionally legal anymore than it makes whistle-blowing, to try to protect the People from
abuse, illegal.
However, what it does mean is that there are no guarantees that the state is going to do the legal thing
or the right thing. It does not mean that a critical mass of responsible individuals within the halls of
power will do the responsible, the legal or the right thing and stand by you, either - this is the critical
and problematic point.
Yes, whistle-blowers are courageous, but it is not because what they choose to do is always
necessarily illegal; it is that the state has the ultimate power to abuse its power to try to shut you up
and/or try to make your life a living hell.
It follows that we do not accept as given that there must be a quid pro quo trade-off of accepting
punishment of the right-doing whistle-blower if only we could simultaneously get punishment of the
wrong-doing state actor - like the virgins-in-volcanoes superstitious belief that we get, only if we give.
Bending over backwards, begging for right to prevail and for state officials and politicians to be
prosecuted for high crimes (rather than demanding it) - even if it means sacrificing the best amongst
us, the whistle-blowers who risk everything for us? For what?! Sorry. It don't wash with me.
But in Twitter parlance still sending out lots of love Glen Greenwald's way - journalist without peer,
shining knight of the round table, defender of liberties par excellence.
Public Notice: Hey, all you ambitious, top-drawer lawyers out there, Thomas Drake is reportedly
tapped out and has had to have a public defender appointed for his defense.
You are welcome to comment on the above article on my blog, here
home
