Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama’s War on Whistleblowers by Scott Horton

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 » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 12:02 PM
Original message
Obama’s War on Whistleblowers by Scott Horton
August 31, 2010

As a young lawyer, Obama represented a whistleblower; as a presidential candidate, he pledged to “strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” But as president, Obama has unleashed the most aggressive assault on whistleblowers Washington has ever seen—surpassing even George W. Bush. The latest example comes in a remarkable prosecution of Steven Kim, a well-known scholar of North Korea’s nuclear program.

Like most area experts at the top of the game, Kim does consulting for the State Department. He works for Lawrence Livermore Labs and was on secondment to the State Department at the time of the events in question. Now, however, Kim finds himself under indictment by the Justice Department. His crime? He spoke to Fox News about how the North Koreans were likely to react to proposed sanction measures. Former prosecutor and Johns Hopkins professor Ruth Wedgwood says that the Fox News report “contains completely unremarkable observations about what a country would do if it was sanctioned for its poor behavior. These kinds of observations were well known to anyone paying attention to public sources and ought not be the basis for making someone a federal felon.” I couldn’t agree more.

Assistant Attorney General David Kris brought the charges. The Kim prosecution is portrayed by him as a “warning to anyone who is entrusted with sensitive national security information and would consider compromising it.” To prohibit discussing such “sensitive” information is effectively to censor public debate about vital facts relating to international affairs and possibly to war. As Kris and his friends would have it, we’re supposed to be kept ignorant while the national-security state cares for us all. It’s also noteworthy that the Obama Justice Department gets worked up when the “leaks” benefit media with a critical attitude towards the administration, Fox News.


http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007562
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Time to update that resume: Lead Corporate Counsel (2008-present), former constitutional lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss.. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Truthfully, it is the same boss...
the scene in DC is a sideshow to keep us distracted. DC is not in charge, wall street is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oy. I honestly don't know what to believe anymore
I'm hoping this is just something not brought to the attention of more sensible minds but as soon as Obama and Holder catch wind of it they'll see the prosecution dropped.

Any transcript of what was supposed to be so sensitive?

Any word on whether the prosecuter initiated the action on his own or was directed from higher up?

I'm not in the excuse-making business but I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt but I also admit that this looks like a horrible miscarriage of justice (unless dude actually blabbed sensitive info).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. From Ruth Wedgwood:
In a written statement, Lowell and co-defense counsel Ruth Wedgwood said Kim was pleading not guilty because the news report that led to the charges "contains completely unremarkable observations about what a country would do if it was sanctioned for its poor behavior. These kinds of observations were well known to anyone paying attention to public sources and ought not be the basis for making someone a federal felon."

"In its obsession to clamp down on perfectly appropriate conversations between government employees and the press, the Obama administration has forgotten that wise foreign policy must be founded on a two-way conversation between government and the public," Lowell and Wedgwood wrote. "The Justice Department has chosen to stretch the espionage laws to cover ordinary and normal conversations between government officials and the press and, in doing so, destroy the career of a loyal civil servant and brilliant foreign policy analyst."

The administration recently arrested an Army official for leaking classified documents to the website WikiLeaks, charged a former National Security Agency official with leaking information about NSA mismanagement to The Baltimore Sun, and renewed an investigation into who leaked classified information to New York Times reporter James Risen for one of his books.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/27/steven-kim-state-department-contractor-charged-leak_n_697734.html

If I can locate the transcript, I'll post it for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. The only people allowed to talk about national security
are those who know nothing about it.

Now THAT is a national security measure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutankhamun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. What campaign promise or pledge ISN'T Obama going to break?
Oh that's right, we're reminded. He did promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he's definitely done that.

Funny how he and his apologists like to point out that he told us during the campaign he would escalate Afghanistan. Somehow, THAT particular promise was important enough to keep.
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 Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles 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