OMNI
WHISTLEBLOWERS
AND LEAKERS NEWSLETTER #1, Series 2
Compiled
by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
What’s at Stake: The power
of the U. S. Corporate State seems overwhelming. Corporations possess immense compensatory and
conditioning power: they control public and government wealth, leadership, and
organization, and opinion through reward, media, and education. On the other
hand, many institutions defend the public from the depredations of the
corporations: the citizens themselves through knowledge and cooperation with
others, government regulators, investigative journalists, and whistleblowers.
Newsletters
Facebook: www.facebook.com/OMNIPeaceDept
Note on related leakers and whistleblower newsletters:
Whistleblowers
Newsletters (see at end): #1 10-21-11, #2 12-12-11, #3 1-31-12, #4 9-11-12, and
more (some apparently were accidentally
deleted).
9 Assange and
Wikileaks Newsletters (9th
7-21-11, the 10th unfinished).
Manning Newsletters #1
12-6-11- .
Snowden, #1 7-9-13
Newsletters on Assange
and Wikileaks #9 7-21-11
Manning #1 12-6-11
Snowden #6, 12-4-14 (a
7th is in preparation)
Contents of Whistleblowers and Leakers
Newsletter, Series 2, #1
Pro-Whistleblower Organizations (see earlier
newsletters)
Expose Facts
Victories
Air Marshall MacLean’s in Supreme Court
UNC Counselor Willingham Settlement
Whistleblowers Fight Back
Whistleblower Takes on
Government: Snowden
Laura Poitras’s Film Won Academy Award
Whistleblower Takes on
Corporation: Watts
Farmer Craig Watts Fights Back Against Perdue Corporation
Opposition to
Whistleblowers: Corporations,
Government, and
Even Journalists:
Naureckas on Elite Journalists
Double Standards for
Espionage
Slap on Wrist for Gen. Petraeus
Prison for Kim and Jeffrey Sterling
Kim:
Amy Goodman, Democracy
Now
Sterling:
Roots Action Petition
Gerstein on James Risen
Google Search
Struggle Continues (join GAP)
USDA’s Inspectors vs. High-Speed Hog Inspection
ORGANIZATIONS
Expose Facts Google Search, May 18, 2015
https://exposefacts.org/
6 days ago - Even as Leonie Brinkema rejected the
government's claim that Jeffrey Sterling committed 7 discrete acts of
Espionage, CIA's former Directors ...
|
... Board · Advisory
Board · Donate. You are here: Home > About ...
|
The Revenge of the
CIA: Scapegoating Whistleblower ...
|
|
ExposeFacts
Editorial Board. barbara-ehrenreich2 Barbara ...
|
The Invisible Man:
Jeffrey Sterling, CIA Whistleblower.
|
|
ExposeFacts Advisory
Board. For bios of Advisory Board ...
|
Why the CIA Is So
Eager to Demolish Whistleblower Jeffrey ...
|
VICTORIES
Air Marshal Whistleblower Wins 7-2 Supreme
Court Victory
http://whistleblower.org/press/air-marshal-whistleblower-wins-7-2-supreme-court-victory
January
21, 2015
Whistleblower Protection Act Wins
with an Exclamation Mark
(Washington, DC) – Today, after
an 8 1/2 year legal ordeal, federal air marshal whistleblower and GAP client Robert
MacLean won a Supreme Court decision affirming that his disclosures
were covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). MacLean publicly warned in 2003 that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) planned to pull federal air marshals, sworn to protect the
public, from commercial aircrafts targeted for an ambitious overseas terrorist
attack. The key legal issue was whether the law’s statutory free speech rights
can be canceled by agency secrecy regulations.
GAP Legal Director Tom Devine,
MacLean's attorney since 2010, commented:
In the
Supreme Court's first case testing the Whistleblower Protection Act, freedom of
speech won with an exclamation point. Federal air marshal whistleblower Robert
MacLean's 7-2 victory means that, after defending his rights for more than
eight years, he will have a chance to achieve justice. The only issue left is
whether MacLean was reasonable to believe that the government's decision to
remove air marshals from targeted flights endangered the public, since the
Department of Homeland Security had planned to go AWOL in the face of a more ambitious
rerun of 9/11. The ruling is a historic victory for the right of individuals to
make a difference through freedom of speech.
MacLean also responded to the
Court's decision. He stated:
I'm
extremely honored and grateful that the Court decided on this case. Many great
people from non-government organizations, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel,
Congress, and the courts came together to make this happen. I believe this
ruling will give other federal employees more confidence in exposing wrongdoing
without breaking the law. No matter what happens, it will always be difficult
for a person to risk his career when speaking out.
Background
In late July 2003, air marshal
Robert MacLean received an unrestricted text message order. The Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) was eliminating coverage of long-distance flights
requiring overnight hotel stays. It was a stunning development, since all air
marshals in the country had just completed emergency training to stop al Qaeda
plans confirmed by U.S. and foreign intelligence for a more ambitious rerun of
the 9/11 attack: this time long-distance flights to multiple U.S. cities and
European capitals were targeted.
MacLean protested to his
supervisor, and then an investigator within the DHS Office of Inspector
General. Both agreed but said there was nothing he could do and should stay
quiet. MacLean would not give up and he reached Congress through the media as a
confidential source. Numerous senators immediately called press conferences to
express outrage and threatened hearings about abandoning the public during an
enemy attack. Within 24 hours, the agency reversed itself and reinstated
protection, saying the order was a "mistake." Air marshal coverage
was restored, and the hijacking was prevented.
Three years later, the agency
identified MacLean as the whistleblower, and fired him for endangering the
nation by violating agency secrecy regulations, after it retroactively labeled
the text message as "Sensitive Security Information" on grounds that
its release was "detrimental to aviation security." GAP represented
MacLean first at the Merit Systems Protection Board, where he lost, and then
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he prevailed
unanimously twice. The court upheld the supremacy of statutory free speech
rights over agency secrecy rules, and ruled even statutory bans on public
disclosures must be specific so employees have clear notice. Undaunted, the
Department of Justice continued its war on whistleblowers by appealing to the
Supreme Court, which accepted the case.
The Hogan and Lovell law firm’s
Neal Katyal and a team of highly-skilled lawyers joined with GAP in defending
MacLean. Katyal was President Obama's former acting Solicitor General. Before
the current victory, he had argued 21 Supreme Court cases (16 at the Department
of Justice) and won them all. MacLean also received impressive solidarity
through friend-of-the-court briefs from Congress, the Office of Special
Counsel, national security professionals, airline consumer groups, a federal
union, and good government organizations. None were filed supporting the
government.
The Decision
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote
the 7-2 majority opinion, which was based on two key issues to interpret the
WPA's relevant limits. 5 USC 2302(b)(8)(A) does not protect public disclosures
that are "specifically prohibited by law." The government argued that
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secrecy regulations qualified as
prohibitions by "law" that override free speech rights passed by
Congress.
The majority ruling unequivocally
rejected that claim, which would have made agency compliance voluntary for
statutory free speech rights: "[T]he question here is whether a disclosure
specifically prohibited by regulation also is specifically prohibited by law under section 2302(b)(8)(A). The answer is
no." (emphasis in decision) The Court explained that Congress used the
term "law, rule or regulation" nine times in section 2302 and only
used the word "law" one time, indicating they did not mean the same
thing. The Court emphasized that the contrasting language was even used in the
same sentence that the government relied on when seeking to cancel MacLean's
rights.
The government also argued that
these particular regulations should qualify as law, because Congress required
DHS to issue appropriate secrecy rules. But the Court noted, "Outside of
this case, however, the government was unable to find a single example of the
word 'law' being used in this way. Not a single dictionary definition, not a single
statute, not a single case."
The Court agreed that the
government’s translation would defeat the Whistleblower Protection Act's
purpose.
The government's second major
argument was that the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) itself was a
specific statutory prohibition, because it ordered agency regulations to bar
disclosures that the Transportation Security Administration chief believed
would be "detrimental to the security of transportation." The Court’s
majority said the ATSA did not prohibit anything itself by ordering DHS to act.
The impact is that Congress cannot relinquish its responsibility by delegating
to agencies if it wants to cancel Whistleblower Protection Act free speech
rights.
While agreeing that regulations
cannot be statutory prohibitions, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined by Justice
Anthony Kennedy dissented on grounds that the ATSA is a statutory prohibition.
Neither the majority nor the dissent commented on the basis of MacLean's
victories at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Those rulings held that the
phrase "detrimental to the security of transportation" is not
sufficiently specific for clear notice to government employees whether they can
blow the whistle publicly. As a result, the Federal Circuit's ruling on that key
issue remains the law of the land.
Devine concluded:
The
survival of the Whistleblower Protection Act was at stake in this case. After
today's victory, freedom of speech is alive, well and stronger than ever.
- See more at: http://whistleblower.org/press/air-marshal-whistleblower-wins-7-2-supreme-court-victory#sthash.qlc9vMTJ.dpuf
UNC 'fake classes' whistleblower to get $335K in settlement
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/us/north-carolina-willingham-unc-settlement/
Updated
5:44 PM ET, Tue March 17, 2015
Mary Willingham sued UNC,
saying she was retaliated against after speaking out about fake classes.
Story highlights
·
Mary Willingham accused UNC of holding fake classes that helped
athletes stay in school
·
The university denied the charge for years, but independent
investigation confirmed it
(CNN)The University of North
Carolina will pay whistleblower Mary Willingham $335,000 to settle her lawsuit with the university, following the largest academic fraud scandal in NCAA
history.
Willingham is the former athletics literacy counselor who blew the whistle about the fake classes that went on for nearly 20 years at the prestigious
university.
Willingham spent years fielding attacks from university
officials -- including accusations that she was lying when she said that
officials within the athletic department steered underprepared athletes into
the fake classes to keep them eligible.
For nearly five years, UNC denied those claims, but Willingham
refused to keep quiet. She first told her story to the News & Observer in
Raleigh, and then to national media when the university refused to admit that
the classes were well-known to faculty.
The added attention forced UNC to hire a new investigator and
launch a new probe in 2014. That latest review, led by Ken Wainstein, a 19-year veteran of the U.S. Justice Department, found
exactly what Willingham had always claimed -- widespread and systematic
cheating.
Willingham left her job last spring after complaining that she
was being retaliated against.
"The University's settlement with Mrs. Willingham resolves
all of the outstanding legal issues in the case," said Rick White,
associate vice chancellor of communications and public affairs. "We
appreciate the efforts of the mediator to help us achieve a successful and
timely conclusion to the mediation. We believe the settlement is in the best
interest of the University and allows us to move forward and fully focus on
other important issues."
When she sued, Willingham said she hoped to accomplish what no
other investigation has done -- to subpoena documents and to depose university
officials under oath. Her lawsuit never got that far.
Instead, she says she's hoping that will be accomplished by a
larger class-action lawsuit filed by powerhouse attorney Michael Hausfeld on
behalf of two former UNC athletes.
Devon Ramsay and Rashanda McCants both sued in January,
saying they were promised an education but didn't get one because of the paper
class scandal.
Hausfeld is the attorney who beat the NCAA last summer in
federal court on behalf of former UCLA player Ed O'Bannon, winning a case that will forever change college sports by forcing the
NCAA to eliminate the rule that forbids schools from paying players.
That lawsuit is the reason Willingham says she was OK with
entering into mediation in her whistleblower suit. She shared the settlement
document with CNN.
"It's about the students and not about me. I don't need it
to be about me," Willingham said. "I got an education, but those
students left without one, and we still have a system that doesn't work. And so
I'm hopeful that (the Hausfeld lawsuit) will move forward and prove that (NCAA
Division I) schools all across the country have a flawed system where a promise
of an education isn't happening, and therefore these students are getting
nothing."
Willingham is co-founder of Paper Class Inc., which serves as a portal and rallying point for the
college sports reform movement and includes a program to give students reading
help in middle school.
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS FIGHT
BACK
"Citizen
Four," Edward Snowden documentary, wins Oscar. From: The Huffington Post. Sent:
Feb 22, 2015 10:00 PM [See newsletters
on Snowden]
To: lmann2@earthlink.net (forwarded by
Louise Mann)
Praxis Films
"Citizen Four" won Best
Documentary at the Oscars on Sunday night. Director Laura Poitras accepted the
award with Glenn Greenwald by her side.
"The disclosures that Edward
Snowden reveals don't only expose a threat to privacy but to democracy
itself," she said "Thank you to Edward Snowden and to the many other
whistleblowers."
FACTORY FARMER CRAIG
WATTS STRIKES BACK AT THE COMPANY HE FARMS FOR
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/watts-suit/
Click to Open Overlay GalleryFarmer Craig Watts.
Screenshot: video by Compassion in World Farming
BACK IN DECEMBER I
wrote about a chicken farmer who took the extraordinary step of inviting animal-welfare activists
into his barns to document the conditions under which his contract compels him
to raise his birds. The farmer, Craig Watts of North Carolina, has raised chicken for Perdue Farms for
two decades and has often been a top producer for them; he was not an outlier,
but someone well within the corporate farming system. Yet it weighed on his
conscience that even when he did his best to care for them, the birds seemed
deformed and unwell. “The consumer’s being hoodwinked,” he said at the time.
The video he made with the group Compassion in World Farming has been
viewed more than 1.6 million times.
Watts continues to raise chickens for Perdue; the company did not yank his
contract. But he claims he has been subjected to a campaign of retaliation from
Perdue as a result, with very frequent visits from a variety of inspectors, and
so he has taken a second extraordinary step. He has filed a federal complaint
claiming whistleblower protection, alleging that he was forced to violate laws
that protect consumers against “adulterated or misbranded” food.
Watts was not the first chicken contract
farmer to speak out — Carole Morrison,
a Maryland contract farmer, appeared in the documentary Food, Inc. and lost her livelihood as a result —
but he’s almost certainly the first to strike back.
Watts is being represented by the Food Integrity Campaign,
part of the nonprofit Government Accountability
Project, which filed on his behalf this morning with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, within the US Department of
Labor. The complaint and cover letter are on the nonprofit’s site. The cover letter sums up the
issue (“Complainant” is Watts and “Respondent” is Perdue):
Complainant
has observed an increase in the number of chicks placed on his farm carrying
bacterial infections. As a result, Complainant believes that Respondent has not
adequately controlled sanitation in its hatcheries to prevent birds from
developing infections while at the hatchery, and is not culling sick birds from
flocks at the hatchery with sufficient care to prevent the introduction and
spread of diseases among the flocks placed on his farm. Additionally,
Complainant believes that because Respondent crowds too many birds into each
house, the birds do not have adequate room to move around freely, causing them
trample each other to access water and food, which in turn leads to scratches
and increased risk of infection. Moreover, Respondent prohibits Complainant
from administering antibiotics and other medications to sick birds, and
Respondent has refused to administer drugs to the birds when Complainant has
sought help dealing with apparent outbreaks of disease among flocks placed on
his farm.
Watts
and his attorneys claim protection under the recent Food Safety Modernization Act,
which added whistleblower “employee protection” provisions to the thicket of
laws that govern food safety in the United States.
It’s notable that, in the complaint,
Watts doesn’t ask for much: He doesn’t seek punitive damages, for instance,
just attorneys’ fees and legal costs. Mostly what he asks is to continue to
farm. After he went public, the poultry industry responded that the conditions in the video were
the result of his poor farming practices; Watts says the first inspectors’
visits were within hours of the video going live, and continued “almost daily”
since then, 23 times in the past two months. According to him, he was put on
a “performance improvement plan,” and the complaint asks for that to be
reversed, and for an end to any “retaliatory increased inspections.”
This
is a lot of legalese, but the key facts are these: Most of the meat we eat in
the US is raised in conditions that most consumers cannot see. This farmer felt
those conditions were injurious to animals and bad for eaters. He opened the
doors on his small corner of the industry in the hopes of changing it, and he
wants to keep those doors open. Whistleblower protection might help him do
that. I reached Watts quickly by phone, and he said: “I want there to be some
avenue for farmers to be protected, so that they don’t have to be walking
around on eggshells. Hopefully this is it.”
Because
the complaint was just posted, Perdue has not yet commented, but I will ask
them for comment and update this post when they do.
OPPOSITION TO WHISTLEBLOWERS
Mar, 27, 2015
What
Have Whistleblowers Done for Elite Journalists Lately? By Jim Naureckas 6 Comments
[This appeared in Extra! May 2015 as “Why Elite
Journalists Hate Whistleblowers.”]
David Gregory asks Glenn Greenwald to explain his lack of
imprisonment.
To the extent that you
have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t
you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?
Meet the Press host David Gregory’s question to
journalist Glenn Greenwald (6/23/13; FAIR Blog, 6/24/13) sums up much of the elite media’s
attitude toward whistleblowers–or what the Washington Post‘s David
Ignatius refers to as “malcontents and self-appointed do-gooders who may get security
clearances.”
This attitude is
documented and questioned in a piece by John Hanrahan, a former Washington
Post reporter who later headed the Fund for Investigative Journalism,
that appeared on the pro-whistleblower Expose Facts site (3/24/15) and was reposted as “Journalists Who
Hate Whistleblowers” by Consortium News (3/25/15).
Near the end of his
piece, Hanrahan asks a series of questions:
Why do these stars of
the news media so readily brush off concerns about our dangerous
warfare/surveillance state revealed by Snowden, Manning and the others? Why do
they cheer on the government’s crackdown on unauthorized leaks and tell us
surveillance and the diminishment of our civil liberties is really for our own
good in a scary world — rather than side with the Bill of Rights and the
handful of other journalists and whistleblowers who expose secrets that people
in a free society should have the right to know?
Though Hanrahan’s
questions are rhetorical–their point, which I certainly agree with, is
that journalists should not brush off concerns about the surveillance state and
should side with the Bill of Rights–they do have answers.
The short one is that elite journalists work for elite news
outlets that are designed to bolster power rather than challenge it. They
are overwhelmingly huge for-profit multinational corporations, whose boards are
packed with industrial magnates and whose business
model is based on rounding up consumers so that they can be persuaded to buy
the products of corporate advertisers. These are hardly institutions that are
likely to hire and promote people who are hoping to undermine the system that
has enriched them so mightily.
One of the most
important things that corporate media do to shore up power is to define “news”
as things that people in power want you to know but haven’t told you yet. This
sets up information as a kind of currency that the powerful dole out to those
who cooperate with them–that is, the elite journalists that Hanrahan is talking
about. They make their living by receiving bits of information from the
powerful–whether it’s a preview of Barack Obama’s next foreign policy address
or details of the upcoming iPhone–and delivering them to you, the audience.
Whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden upset this economy. They don’t portion out
secrets in exchange for favorable coverage–they dump out as much as they can
because they believe the public has a right to know what their government is
doing. They undermine the whole conceptual structure that makes being a media
gatekeeper a prestigious and lucrative position because they make it obvious
that most government secrecy has no purpose other than to maintain government
power.
A whistleblower isn’t going to get you invited to a shindig like this. (From Politico.)
And on the most basic
level, what can whistleblowers do for elite journalists? Sure, they can give
you a story, or lots of stories, that will inform citizens about what their
leaders are up to–but if that was your primary motivation, you wouldn’t have
made it to the top of the corporate media pyramid in the first place.
Whistleblowers can’t
get you a high-paying
lobbying jobafter you’ve taken a buyout from your newspaper.
Whistleblowers can’t invite you to the right kind of
partywhere you’ll mingle with other powerful people. And
whistleblowers won’t ensure that you’ll be treated as one of the Very Serious
People–the kind who will never, ever have to explain to David Gregory why
they’re not in jail.
Related
David Gregory Doesn't Understand David Gregory's Snowden
QuestionJune 24, 2013In "First Amendment"
Washington Post's WikiLeaks/Snowden/Greenwald Conspiracy
TheoryJuly 9, 2013In "Surveillance"
What Do You Call Edward Snowden?August 16,
2013In "CBS"
PROSECUTIONS NOT EVEN HANDED
Gen. Petraeus, Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling
DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR LEAK
PROSECUTIONS UNDER
ESPIONAGE LAW
ESPIONAGE LAW
GENERAL PETRAEUS—TWO YEARS
PROBATION
For Immediate Release
Tuesday,
March 3, 2015 - 4:45pm
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/03/03/press-statement-regarding-petraeus-soft-plea-deal
Contact:
Andrew
Harman, GAP Communications Director (815) 295-4340
Press Statement Regarding Petraeus' Soft Plea Deal
WASHINGTON
- Today, the Justice Department handed former CIA Director David Petraeus a
friendly plea agreement, which includes a recommendation of two years probation
under 18 USC Sec. 1924 for illegally disclosing classified information to his
mistress. The agreement highlights the grossly
unfair double standard in so-called “leak” prosecutions, as eight
whistleblowers have been charged under the draconian 1917 Espionage Act since
2008.In regard to the plea deal, GAP’s Jesselyn Radack stated:
“The government has used the Espionage Act to overzealously
prosecute GAP's whistleblower clients and threaten them with decades in prison.
Petraeus’ cushy plea deal makes crystal clear that the government has more than
enough tools to punish leaks without resorting to the heavy-handed Espionage
Act.
“The Justice Department reserves the Espionage Act for
whistleblowers like GAP clients Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou,
who reveal information in the public interest, while well-connected,
politically powerful leakers like Petraeus, whose leaks are of no benefit to
the public, are given a slap on the wrist, or a promotion and a book deal. This
selective and vindicate enforcement of the law has no place in a democratic
justice system.”
Former GAP client John
Kiriakou, who was prosecuted under the Espionage Act in 2012,
echoed Radack’s frustrations, stating:
“I don’t think General Petraeus should have been prosecuted
under the Espionage Act, just as I don’t think I should have been prosecuted
under the Espionage Act. Yet only one of us was. Both Petraeus and I disclosed
undercover identities (or confirmed one in my case) that were never published.
I spent two years in prison; he gets two years probation."
Similarly, GAP
client Thomas Drake, who was
indicted under the Espionage Act in 2010, said:
“General Petraus willingly and knowingly removed, retained and
disclosed highly classified information to someone not authorized to receive
it. This action served no public good. I used every internal channel available
to me as a whistleblower, and revealed only unclassified information evidencing
massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality to the tune of $4 billion. Yet I was
charged with ten felony counts, five under the Espionage Act, and was labeled
an enemy of the state, while General Petraus received a slap on the wrist. The
government’s message is clear – whistleblowing in the public interest will be
punished, while disclosing classified information devoid of public value will
get you a pass.”
The Government
Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes
government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech,
defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this
mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate
Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security
programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
STEPHEN KIM—PRISON 13 MONTHS
DEMOCRACY NOW! Amy
Goodman
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 PREVIOUS | NEXT
Jailed
for Speaking to the Press Part 2: Peter Maass on the Case of State Dept. Expert
Stephen Kim
Stephen-kim-intercept-1
Jailed for Speaking to the Press: How
the Obama Admin Ruined Life of State Dept Expert Stephen Kim
In Part 2 of
our conversation with Peter Maass, an investigative reporter at The Intercept,
he continues discussing the Obama administration’s
prosecution of former North Korea expert Stephen Kim for violating the
Espionage Act. Kim is one of nine
such cases under the Obama administration — twice as many as all previous
presidents combined. The former State Department contractor was accused of
discussing classified documents on North Korea with Fox News reporter James
Rosen. Last year, he was sentenced to 13 months in prison. But Kim always
maintained his innocence. During the year before he went to prison, he shared
his story with The Intercept.
AMY GOODMAN:
Here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy
Goodman. As we continue looking at the case of jailed State Department
whistleblower Stephen Kim, we’re joined by Peter Maass, a senior writer at The
Intercept. His new article just out today is titled "Destroyed by the
Espionage Act: Stephen Kim Spoke to a Reporter. Now He’s in Jail. This is His
Story."
Peter Maass,
welcome back to Democracy Now! You’ve been on this story for a while now. You
actually accompanied Stephen Kim on his journey to jail, where he sits right
now. So what did the government say in introducing Stephen Kim to James Rosen,
someone who was inexperienced in talking to reporters?
PETER MAASS:
Well, he was introduced, Stephen Kim, to James Rosen by John Herzberg, who was
a press liaison in the State Deparment. And there weren’t, as far as I know,
kind of like precise instructions: "This is what you talk about; this is
what you don’t talk about; this is, you know, the attribution," or whatever.
But it was an introduction that was intended to begin a relationship where they
would talk about policy. Rosen was a reporter for a major American network who
wanted to know more, as all reporters do, which is good. And Stephen Kim was
somebody who could inform. This was actually a very kind of exemplary act, you
know? It is good for State Department press affairs officers to introduce
experts to journalists, so they can talk, whether on the record or off the
record, so that journalists themselves can be better informed, so that the
American public could be better informed, so that maybe views that aren’t in
the White House press room when the press secretary gets up to talk about the
day’s news are actually filtered out and distributed to the populace. This is
the kind of thing that should happen all the time. But because the government
has, instead of encouraging this, charged and gotten a conviction against
Stephen Kim on the Espionage Act, these sorts of encounters are going to become
rarer and rarer, and we’re the poorer for it.
AMY GOODMAN:
Can you talk about, ultimately, Stephen Kim’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, famed lawyer
who represented President Clinton around his impeachment, the different legal
strategies he used? MORE
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Maass, thanks so much for being
with us, award-winning investigative journalist, author, senior writer at The
Intercept, has just published a major report headlined "Destroyed by the Espionage Act: Stephen
Kim Spoke to a Reporter. Now He’s in Jail. This is His Story." We’ll
link to the article and to the video that accompanies it. It was produced by
the Oscar-nominated filmmaker Laura Poitras, Peter Maass and Steven Maing. The
video is called The Surrender. This is Democracy Now!,
democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
JEFFREY
STERLING—Prison 13 Months
Robert Greenwald,
bravenewfilms
Roots Action
Petition
Gerstein on James
Risen
Google Search
Another Whistleblower Sentenced!
|
|
8:00 AM (1 hour ago)
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
10:40 AM (3 hours ago)
 |
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Tense –>
In a pretrial hearing for ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who is accused
of leaking secrets to the media, NYT national
security reporter James Risen sparred with prosecutors — and confirmed some
information that he had previously revealed — but continued to protect his
sources. The Justice Department recently decided not to jail Risen for refusing
to divulge the information. Josh Gerstein has the details at Politico.
AP Photo
NYT’s
James Risen pushes back in hearing on leaks
The Obama administration’s plan to defuse a
First Amendment showdown with a New York
Times reporter over his confidential sources was nearly derailed at a court
hearing Monday when the journalist rebuffed a series of questions concerning
his reporting.
But he eventually agreed to answer some of the
queries, allowing the at-times tense session to get back on track and avoiding
for now a major confrontation over press freedom.
Times national security writer James Risen testified
for about 45 minutes in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, where ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling is set
to go on trial next week on charges of leaking top-secret information that Risen published in his 2006 book “State of
War.”
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema called
the pretrial hearing to determine, outside the presence of the jury, what Risen
would and would not be willing to testify about in connection with Sterling’s
trial.
Prosecutors, acting on orders from Attorney
General Eric Holder, had already agreed not to ask Risen to identify his
sources for his reporting in the book on “Operation Merlin,” a Central
Intelligence Agency program aimed at undermining Iran’s nuclear program.
However, the prosecution did want Risen to
testify about some basic facts relating to his reporting for the book and
newspaper articles. Risen at first resisted confirming statements he’d made in
previous court filings about confidentiality agreements he had with his sources
and even whether he’d talked to Sterling for a 2002 article that quoted him by
name.
But after Brinkema called a quick break and
reminded Risen that he’d already discussed those points in submissions provided
“under the penalty of perjury,” he returned to court somewhat more cooperative
with prosecutors.
Risen eventually confirmed the accuracy of his
prior statements.
At times, the distinctions between what the
journalist would say and what he would not seemed Talmudic. However, he
appeared unwilling to discuss the specifics of any agreements he had with any
sources.
“As I said in my 2011 affidavit, I have used
unnamed and identified sources,” Risen said under questioning by prosecutor James
Trump. “When my reporting in articles or a book describes reporting gathered
from unnamed sources, I had unnamed sources.”
When Trump asked Risen directly if he had
confidentiality agreements with sources for the key chapter in “State of War,”
the journalist simply repeated that some information came from “unidentified”
sources and some from “identified” sources.
“Do you understand the question I’m asking you,
sir?” Trump said brusquely, his hands shaking the legal papers he was holding
at the lectern.
“I do,” Risen replied, only to repeat the same
formulation for a fourth time.
At one point, Brinkema interrupted the
back-and-forth between Risen and Trump in which the reporter repeatedly gave
vague answers. She declared with some frustration: “It’s a simple question. …
Either you had confidentiality agreements [with your sources] or you don’t.”
Risen said he didn’t interpret the question that
way, and repeated much of his previous answers that some of his sources were
“unidentified” and some were “identified.”
When Trump pressed Risen about whether a 2002
article contained information provided by Sterling on a nonconfidential basis,
the journalist demurred.
“I decline to answer that question,” Risen said.
“I don’t want to provide information that the government wants to use for a
building block for a larger mosaic in this case.”
Sterling, who is free on bail pending trial, sat
stoically alongside his attorneys Monday as Risen testified.
Risen did eventually confirm that the
information in his book was an accurate description of what named or unnamed
sources had told him. And the journalist also confirmed he’d talked to Sterling
for the 2002 story, which was about a racial discrimination lawsuit the
African-American CIA officer filed against the agency.
“I accurately quoted the identified sources in
the story,” Risen said.
“And one of those sources is Mr. Sterling?”
Trump asked.
“Yes,” Risen replied, confirming he’d had some
dealings with the defendant facing 10 felony counts.
Sterling’s lawyer Edward MacMahon said Monday
that he planned to ask that the case against his client be dismissed. Without
more testimony from Risen, such as the location and times when he got certain
classified information, the government could not meet its burden to prove the
ex-CIA officer guilty, the defense lawyer argued.
It’s unclear how Brinkema will rule, but her
earlier rulings have suggested she believes the government has a reasonable
chance of proving its case without Risen identifying his sources or providing
the missing details noted by the defense lawyer.
The judge said it would now be up to either side
to decide whether it wishes to call Risen at Sterling’s trial, for which jury
selection is slated to begin next Monday.
Read
more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/james-risen-testify-leak-case-113972.html#ixzz3O3uQeUgF
Convicted –> On Monday, a jury convicted
former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling on nine counts related to his leaking
details of a secret operation to NYT reporter James Risen. AP
has more. 1-26-15
bing.com/news
Washington
Post ·
4 hours ago
A former CIA
officer who was involved in a highly secretive operation to give faulty nuclear
plans to Iran was…
Los
Angeles Times ·
9 hours ago
U-T
San Diego ·
10 hours ago
www.cnn.com · 17 hours ago
www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/cia-officer-in-leak-case... · 1 day ago
Jan 26,
2015 · Jeffrey A. Sterling was convicted of espionage on
charges that he told a New York Times reporter about a secret operation to
disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
https://undisputedlegal.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/former-cia-officer...
Jan 27,
2015 · Sterling, who faced charges under the Espionage Act, was
first accused in 2010 of giving classified information to New York Times
reporter and author James ...
Politico · 23 hours ago
Jan 26, 2015 ·
A federal court jury found former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling guilty on
nine felony counts Monday stemming from the leak of a top-secret CIA
operation to ...
news.yahoo.com/jury-cia-leak-trial-says-cant-reach-unanimous...
ALEXANDRIA, Va.
(AP) — A former CIA officer was convicted Monday of leaking details of a
covert mission to derail Iran's nuclear program in a case that, until the ...
Washington
Times1
day ago
Jan 26,
2015 · A former CIA officer was convicted Monday of leaking
classified details of an operation to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions to a New
York Times reporter.
midtownblogger.blogspot.com/2015/01/...officer-sterling-convicted.html
Jan 26,
2015 · Former CIA Officer Sterling Convicted in Leak Case-
Other Stories and Features- Washington Post
www.headnine.com/top/...in-leak-case-jeffrey-sterling-is-convicted...
Jan 26,
2015 · Jeffrey A. Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency
officer, was convicted of...
CBS
News ·
1 day ago
ALEXANDRIA, Va.
-- A former CIA officer was convicted Monday of leaking classified
details of an operation to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions to a New …
10.
Related searches for leaker sterling convicted
STRUGGLE
CONTINUES
Inspectors Warn Against USDA’s High-Speed Hog
Inspection Program
http://whistleblower.org/blog/052130-inspectors-warn-against-usda%E2%80%99s-high-speed-hog-inspection-program
Government
Accountability Project, January 30, 2015
Today, the Government
Accountability Project (GAP) is releasing evidence it has gathered from federal
meat inspector whistleblowers who currently work at pork processing plants
participating in a high-speed inspection pilot program. These whistleblowers
voice concerns regarding the program and warn about the potential public health
implications if this plan is instituted on a national level.
GAP is making publicly available
affidavits from four U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors that
illustrate serious concerns with the agency pilot program that increases the
speed of processing lines and reduces the number of trained USDA inspection
personnel in the hog plants.
Director of GAP’s Food Integrity
Campaign, Amanda Hitt, stated:
The USDA
already refused to listen to its own inspectors when it implemented a similar
high-speed inspection program for poultry late last year. Now the agency is
poised to reduce oversight and increase line speeds at plants with hogs. It’s
become abundantly clear that the Department of Agriculture is not interested in
listening to the food safety concerns voiced by its own staff. Since the
government doesn’t wish to heed whistleblowers, we are urging pork producers to
reject sub-par meat inspection that places profit before public health.
GAP has launched a Change.org petition urging Hormel, one of the largest pork
producers in the United States, to abandon its use of high-speed inspection.
The company owns three out of five hog plants currently participating in USDA’s
pilot program.
USDA inspectors stationed at the
Hormel pilot plants have informed GAP that the high-speed inspection model will
lead to more contaminated and defective products on consumers’ plates. Some of
the problems that inspector affidavits raise include:
- Plant
employees take over the duties of government inspectors. While federal
employees (including at USDA) have whistleblower protections and can speak
on behalf of the plant workers, Hormel employees are in the private sector
and have inadequate legal safeguards. They cannot safely report food
safety problems or stop the lines without fear of retaliation.
- Line
speeds at pilot plants run up to 20 percent faster than those at plants
operating under traditional inspection. Quicker speeds make it even more
difficult for plant employees and USDA inspectors to detect contamination
on carcasses.
- Company
employees lack adequate training and often fail to identify signs of
defects and contamination that could result in foodborne illness or
unwholesome products. Inspectors in pilot plants report a higher level of
zero-tolerance food safety hazards compared to plants operating under
traditional inspection.
- USDA
inspectors are only allowed to conduct inspections on a small sample of
hogs. Samples in these plants are not representative, and don’t reflect
true pathogen risk.
The names of three of the
inspectors, and all identifying information of the specific plants, have been
redacted at the request of the inspectors. However, these affidavits have the
full backing and endorsement of GAP.
Direct Quotes from USDA
Inspectors
- There aren’t enough eyes
on the line to monitor carcasses coming by at such high speeds. (Anonymous
Inspector, Affidavit #1)
- On numerous occasions I
witnessed them [company inspectors] fail to spot abscesses, lesions, fecal
matter, and other defects that would render an animal unsafe or unwholesome.
(Anonymous Inspector, Affidavit #1)
- When USDA loses the
authority to make plant employees engage in corrective actions, the program
stops working. This is what has happened at the plant where I work. (Anonymous
Inspector, Affidavit #2)
- Other contamination such
as hair, toenails, cystic kidneys, and bladder stems has increased under HIMP
[pilot program]. Line speeds don’t make it any easier to detect contamination.
Most of the time they are running so fast it is impossible to see anything on
the carcass. (Anonymous Inspector, Affidavit #2)
- When HIMP was originally
implemented, I had high hopes that the program would improve food safety. Over
the past few years, I have learned that is not the case. Instead it seems like
it is just the USDA’s way of catering to the industry instead of the consumer.
(Anonymous Inspector, Affidavit #2)
- The company threatens
plant employees with terminations if they see them condemning too many
carcasses or carcass parts. (Anonymous Inspector, Affidavit #3)
- It seems like the USDA is
doing all it can to make sure the HIMP program succeeds in this plant, even if
it means betraying consumers by hiding the truth about their food. (Anonymous
Inspector, Affidavit #3)
- It’s no longer meaningful
for consumers to see that mark indicating that their product has been
USDA-inspected. (Anonymous Inspector, Affidavit #3)
- Food safety has gone down
the drain under HIMP. (Anonymous Inspector, Affidavit #3)
- Personally, I will not
eat any products that bear the name of the company for which this meat is
produced. I don’t think that it is wholesome or safe to consume. (Joe Ferguson,
Affidavit #4)
- After working in this
plant for more than ten years, I definitely do not support its expansion to the
rest of the industry. (Joe Ferguson, Affidavit #4)
- See more at: http://whistleblower.org/blog/052130-inspectors-warn-against-usda%E2%80%99s-high-speed-hog-inspection-program#sthash.rsP1SAqM.dpuf
Whistleblowers
Newsletters #1 10-21-11, #2 12-12-11, #3 1-31-12, #4 9-11-12, and more).
END WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS NEWSLETTER, SERIES
2, #1, May 18, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment