Ellsberg: Obama administration concerned about preventing transparency, & more than Bush

[Bluebear]

Daniel Ellsberg is asked to comment on a clip of press secretary Robert Gibbs complaining about the leaks:

KING: Daniel, do you understand why Mr. Gibbs, representing the president, is so upset?

ELLSBERG: Well, he's very upset in part because he's working for a president who has indicted more people now for leaks than all previous presidents put together. And two of those people -- Thomas Drake and Shamai Leibowitz -- have been indicted for acts that were undertaken under Bush, which George W. Bush administration chose not to indict.

So this is an administration that's more concerned about preventing transparency, I would say, than its predecessor which I'm very sorry to hear. As somebody who voted for Obama and expect to vote for him again, despite all this.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/ellsberg-obama-has-indicted-more-people.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K& (canceled-out) R

[Renew Deal]

2. "Leaks" of confidential information has nothing to do with "transparency,"

The gov't is doing the right thing when they prosecute "leakers."

[Bluebear]

3. Tell Ellsberg. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. +1

[NJmaverick]

+ 1 million for stating missing fact!

[DJ13]

5. I like spoon fed government bullshit too

Dont tell me the truth, tell me sweet lies to keep the wars going.
:patriot:

[Bluebear]

6. All these indictments for leaks, and none for torture. :(

[DJ13]

7. Well, the leakers dont have the connections the real criminals have

Low hanging fruit.

[Renew Deal]

13. Missing the point

You are given the spoon fed government bullshit. Stealing it is the problem.

[sabrina 1]

35. The American people pay for

these wars. I don't see how it is theft to supply them with information on how their money is being spent. The real theft is the theft of lives and the billions of unaccounted-for tax dollars being spent like water over there, as we well know.

[Renew Deal]

42. Give me access to your bank account.

There's nothing wrong with that since you gave it to me.

Now, I will take that info and post it on DU and Fark.com (just for laughs). We'll see how you feel about people knowing how you spend your money.

And don't BS me on this. Put your money where you mouth is and give me access to your bank account.

[sabrina 1]

45. I would if tax-payer $$$ were paying me for what I am doing

what I am buying with it.

You're not making sense. WE PAY for these wars. Congress is supposed to represent US and end them when the mission is accomplished or cannot be accomplished. Iow, Congress is in charge of how our tax $$$ are spent because that money belongs to the people.

Congress is NOT in charge of my bank account because I don't get any money from American people ear-marked for a specific purpose. If I did I would have to account to Congress for how I spend it, AND I would have to tell the truth about that.

Do you understand the difference between a private citizen's money and the American People's money?

[Renew Deal]

46. It has nothing to do with money

But using your example, the "American Peoples Money" is not your money.

[sabrina 1]

49. Are you saying that we should not have a free press?

I may be misinterpreting you, but that's what you seem to be saying.

This is news. Should the WAPO have hidden the Watergate story since it cam from a whistle-blower?

Should Bush have had the power to kill the Abu Ghraib story because it came from a whistle-blower?

What about the man in this story, Daniel Elsberg? Should the news media have hidden the information he provided to the American people about the lies they were being told?

I'm not following your logic.

Congress just voted for another huge fund to pay for the continuation of this war. That money belongs to the American people. We trust them to spend it wisely. They have 'the power of the purse', or did you not know that?

When they were entrusted with that heavy burden, they were also entrusted with telling the American people the truth. And just in case they don't, to keep this democracy healthy, we have a free press, to keep an eye on them.

When neither are doing their jobs, we have whistle-blowers, good citizens who see something wrong and report on it. Like Daniel Elsberg.

Julian Assange is not an American citizen, he is a news dispenser. A brave American citizen chose his organization to get important information the American people, the people who are paying for that war.

What is it about this that you object to, because this is how democracy works. I can't imagine what you do not like about it.

[Renew Deal]

54. It's quite simple

And you're twisting and twisting because you know it. This has nothing to do with the press, or whistleblowers, or whether this is news. The act of stealing this information is a crime and has nothing to do with "transparency."

[sabrina 1]

59. Who stole it? And from whom?

I don't see where I'm twisting anything, unless you believe that the truth about what our government does should be hidden from the public.

How about the Abu Ghraib whistle-blower? The videos did not belong to him. Was he a thief? Was he wrong to reveal what was going on in that U.S. controlled prison?

How about Sy Hersch? Was he wrong to report on all the stories he reported on during the War in Vietnam?

Was he wrong to report on Abu Ghraib?

I am simply looking at the facts. No one has yet disputed the facts contained in these documents. People are being killed. Lies have been told about that. Should we just look the other way?

When Bush was president, the right excused all these crimes. They attacked the whistle-blowers. We condemned that willful blindness. Has anything changed regarding what is right or what is wrong?

[Mimosa]

61. Thanks, Sabrina, for your logical explanations: TRUTH is what we need revealed. n/t

[bvar22]

37. Stealing the Truth.

Interesting perspective you've got there.

[Renew Deal]

41. How is stealing not stealing?

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

43. Is news 'theft'?

What is contained in those documents is news that should have been reported by our useless, compromised media. Would you call it theft if the media had done their jobs and reported on, eg, the killing of civilians which is often lied about by the military? Who 'owns' that information?

[Renew Deal]

44. You're mixing up issues.

The contents of the leaks (and the leaks) are "news." There's no question about it. But the leaks are a crime. There's no dispute about that either. The government owns it.

[moodforaday]

65. Okay now...

1. You were the one to introduce the (entirely false) analogy to someone's private bank account, and when you're taken to task for it, you accuse people of twisting things. They are not twisting anything, they point out the illogic of your arguments.

2. The government is not a corporation, and the government is not a private citizen. It does not "own" anything. It can issue a legal statement that says "this piece of paper is classified", which has nothing to do with ownership or any rights of ownership. If the government is abusing this privilege in order to hide criminal acts, how is exposing them wrong?

If anything, YOU own the documents, since your taxes helped pay for them.

3. At best, you could call it stealing of someone had to break into a government building and physically remove the documents. COPYING data or PUBLISHING data can in no way be called stealing, that much should be obvious. But in the cases under discussion, no theft of documents took place. People who already had access to them, gave them to other people. How's that stealing?

[bvar22]

48. I don't call it "stealing" in this case.

I call it "Patriotism".
That information already belongs to us.
The government is "stealing" when they try to hide it under the blanket of "National Security".

"An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy."
Ever heard that before?
Can you guess who said it?

[Renew Deal]

51. Would you call these guys freedom fighters?

[bvar22]

55. WTF?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Complete Red Herring.

[Renew Deal]

57. Neither does "patriotism"

[bvar22]

63. Thomas Jefferson thought so.

I do too,
if you believe in protecting our "Democracy".
As American citizens, we have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to KNOW what our government is doing in our names. It is our obligation to oversee the government.

Police States can be very safe if you are a member of the Oligarchy.
I understand why you are attracted to that,
but it is NOT for me.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin

[Ignis]

56. Non sequitur AND a disgusting inference, all in one post.

:puke:

[Forkboy]

64. Good Lord, that's just dumb.

No, seriously. It's really, really dumb. :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

8. There is a disconnect here

They've been pouring over the leaked Afghan documents. The vast majority of them were marked "secret", which is one of the lowest levels of classification they could have. But the definition of secret is that their release could "do harm" to national security. But now we are hearing that they can't find anything that is harmful. So apparently information is being labeled as secret inappropriatedly. That's not surprising, because alot of info gets classified so that the public won't get access. It doesn't have to do with national security, but political security. And that's where "leakers" come in. And this information was screened for potential harm to individuals. Leakers expose what governments want hidden for political reasons.

[Ignis]

58. +1 for "Leakers expose what governments want hidden for political reasons."

Not safety, not security--just fucking politics as usual.

[sabrina 1]

62. Excellent points. Should be an OP as there are apparently

and disturbingly being it is a Democratic board, a number of people here who are in favor of secrecy for political purposes.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. When Nixon tried to cover up his crimes, we HE "doing the right thing"?

[Renew Deal]

12. Be more specific

What actions and what crimes?

[Ignis]

53. Obviously, the poster's talking about the Plumbers paid for by CREEP.

Don't be coy.

[EFerrari]

18. Like when they put the whistleblower in jail who led them to thousands of tax cheats

and they all got off with fines?

Yeah, right. War is peace, too!

[Bluebear]

34. +

[Oregone]

4. "who has indicted more..."

I don't think that is a sound measurement for preventing transparency. It could also be a measurement for promoting "justice" (following the law, as it is written).

A better measurement is about what is being kept from the public, and that is something that is simply unmeasurable.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Must stop Ellsberg!11!111111

There's probably something he can be arrested on - there's always something in a country with so many laws. Has this Ellsberg paid his debt to society for leaking the Pentagon Papers? His trial ended in a dismissal, you say, due to gross governmental misconduct in the course of his prosecution - including misconduct by the judge who eventually dismissed charges? Well, there's an opening right there! Arrest that man!

If he can't be charged a second time with violation of the Sedition Act, he can be sued for violating the tender feelings and civil rights of the General Staff of the Pentagon for filching their secret documents and snitching on them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Well, going after those that embarrass the administration is the "practical" thing to do. K&R

Otherwise, more people might start asking questions and demanding "change".

[LWolf]

14. k&r

[sabrina 1]

15. Ellsberg tells the truth and people on this board

unrec the truth,.

K&R'd for the truth ... and thank you Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange for being brave enough to face the forces you both knew would be aligned against you.

Sad to see it here though ...

[kgnu_fan]

19. Deeply saddened by anti-democratic authoritarian war mongers among us

[sabrina 1]

38. Yes, and they are still at it.

The truth is still being unrec'd on this post. One more just registered as I checked your response to me.

Shameful, really ...

[kgnu_fan]

16. Truth will set us free

[donheld]

17. This thread has a lot of unrecommends and only

maybe one person with the guts to say why they're unrecommending. I find that cowardly

[Luminous Animal]

20. I gave it a rec but I rarely give unrecs and usually state when I do....

though perhaps not the reason why unless asked.

[EFerrari]

21. Invisible rec. n/t

[lonestarnot]

22. Very fucking troubling indeed.

[ProSense]

23. Bush was more concerned about transparency than President Obama?

Is he basing this on the Bush administration leaking Plame's identity?

Ellsberg comment is preposterous.

[flyarm]

25. Yeah right...sarcasm intended....preposterous???

Just where are the indictments for Torture? Illegal spying on Americans? Illegal renditions? Two illegal wars?
When do we get Habeas Corpus back from the constitutional lawyer now president????????? Defying the laws of the Geneva Conventions?

What a joke!

But the Joke is on all of us and our Constitution!



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?_r=1

-Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 11, 2010

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.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/31-2010/663-usagate-no-prosecutions-but-obama-administration-goes-after-drake-a-other-whistleblowers

USAGate: No Prosecutions. (But Obama Administration Goes After Drake & Other Whistleblowers)

by Jesselyn Radack on July 23, 2010 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

snip:
But if we are going to look past the most horrific crimes of the Bush administration--torture, warrantless wiretapping, political firings--then it makes it particularly grotesque and obscene that the Obama administration is willing to continue--and ratchet up--Bush-era investigations into people who tried to do the right thing, like NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake and reporter James Risen.

Nora Dannehy, who was appointed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey to look into USA gate, recommended against further action yesterday.

According to a letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Congress,

there is insufficient evidence to show that any witness made prosecutable false statements . . . or corruptly endeavored to impede a congressional inquiry.

I call bullsh*t. There are detailed descriptions--including congressional testilying (that's not a typo) regarding witness tampering, subornation of perjury, false statements to the government, and obstruction of justice. We all cheered when Mukasey has appointed a special prosecutor to continue the inquiry. Little did we know Obama would end it.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-and-whistleblowers-should.html
Monday, July 12, 2010
Obama and Whistleblowers: Should Progressives Be "Disgusted"?

With the arrest of an Army intelligence analyst in the Wikileaks case, a question comes to mind: Should more progressives be disgusted with President Barack Obama for his treatment of those who uncover government wrongdoing?

The question hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because of the abuse heaped on Tamarah Grimes, a former U.S. Justice
Department paralegal in the Middle District of Alabama who blew the whistle on misconduct in the Don Siegelman prosecution. Is mistreatment of whistleblowers becoming an alarming trend in the Obama administration?

The director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) might have been ahead of the curve when he recently said that he was "disgusted" with Obama, partly because of the president's tendency to protect the powerful at the expense of the powerless.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Google Operation Mockingbird)

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government
28 Jul 2010
http://www.legitgov.org
All links are here:
http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

Leaked files indicate U.S. pays Afghan media to run friendly stories --Other reports show U.S. military personnel apparently referring to Afghan reporters as 'our journalists' and directing them in how to do their jobs. 27 Jul 2010 Buried among the 92,000 classified documents released Sunday by WikiLeaks is some intriguing evidence that the U.S. military in Afghanistan has adopted a PR strategy that got it into trouble in Iraq: paying local media outlets to run friendly stories. Several reports from Army psychological operations units and provincial reconstruction teams (also known as PRTs, civilian-military hybrids tasked with rebuilding Afghanistan) show that local Afghan radio stations were under contract to air content produced by the United States.

[sabrina 1]

52. The Valerie Plame case.

An undercover agent's ID revealed for political purposes. A treasonous offense. Yet, no one went to jail. Libby got a slap on the wrist, that was about it.

Bush destroyed the Rule of Law. We worked hard to get a Dem majority so that we could fix that.

These documents confirm what many have suspected about this war. They are news that is very relevant to the current spending on these wars.

I notice you mentioned the only settled case from the Bush era, the one that this administration cannot go back and redo. Lucky for them because I doubt they would.

How did you feel about the exoneration of those, Karl Rove et al, who fired eight US attorneys for political reasons?

How about all the whistle-blowers who have been prosecuted by this administration, far more than by the Bush administration? That alone makes Daniel Ellsberg's comment not so preposterous doesn't it?

[flyarm]

24. K&R for the real truth tellers!! Thank You Ellsberg and Julian ASSANGE

You are both incredible human beings..and you care about Humanity more than almost all of our politicians, who only seem to give a rats ass about their own asses!


Julian ASSANGE, WikiLeaks founder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y37QLAoYgw&feature=player_embedded

[Ross K]

26. Uh, no.

Obama found himself in a Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld pool of shit: You cannot swim out of such without a few dirty strokes.

[flyarm]

27. In my state if shit gets in a pool ..it must be drained and scrubbed and disinfected..

before starting all over and filling with clean water!

You don't keep adding shit to the pool with the same filthy shit! Or adding clean water to the shitty water expecting the shit to go away all by itself!

[Bluebear]

29. Thank you.

[avaistheone1]

30. Point crudely made.

However, you are correct.

[flyarm]

31. sorry for the crudeness..but I was replying to the Post above ..

[Starry Messenger]

60. Actually, that's one of the best analogies about this I've ever read.

:thumbsup:

[amborin]

28. K&R

[laughingliberal]

32. K & R nt

[jpak]

36. fucking horseshit

unreccing

[kenny blankenship]

39. Is that your "away" message?

Roasting coffee atm, brb.

[bvar22]

40. Fucking Truth.

Reccing

Now up to +22.
Thankfully, there IS still a majority on DU who remember what "Democrat" should STAND for.

[sabrina 1]

47. Wow, the word must have gone out to unrec the truth and

one of America's heroes.

Of course that raises the question. Are we now Pro-War and 'hide the truth' about them, as the right was when they were Bush's wars?

Me, I was against them then, FOR transparency and truth, and I haven't changed my mind since then.

[leftstreet]

50. K&R