Skip to main content

View Diary: What Do a Retired Catholic Bishop, UAE Commentator & Julian Assange Have in Common? (7 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what will it take to stop war on whistle blowers? (8+ / 0-)

    failure in courts does not slow them down

    almost totally ignoring the issue in the corporate media means that most don't even know that it is going on

    legislators don't want to support whistle blowers because they are complicit in the transfer of the rule of the country to the corporations and the banks

    looks like the citizens need to rise up

    I am waiting....

    •  . (8+ / 0-)
      looks like the citizens need to rise up

      I am waiting....

      This seems the appropriate place to add: We must be the change we seek.


      "When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~♥~ Anonymous ~♥~

      by Lisa Lockwood on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 07:13:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Failure in courts (6+ / 0-)

      does not matter when your main purpose is to scare the hell out of anyone who is considering blowing the whistle in the future.

      The only way that there is even a chance of people rising up against this is to keep shining a light on it, cutting through the propaganda, etc., in whatever ways we can.  Thanks to all the people who do (and take a lot of crap for it here on dkos.)


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 07:22:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what will it take to stop ignoring things like a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett

      President having the authority only Kings and Despots have had, like indefinitely detaining anyone he chooses, or to have anyone he selects killed without any charges filed against them or with any explanation that can be challenged in any Court?
      I think the answer to those things and the prosecution of whistle blowers will be when "citizens rise up" and not a moment before.

      We now have the prosecution of a whistle blower that spoke up about torture facing a long prison sentence while people like Jose Rodriguez that bragged about torture and burned evidence of torture (the torture tapes) do book tours (like Bush, Rice, Cheney, Runsfeld, etc.)

       Here's an article on his interview with '60 Minutes' .

      http://www.newyorker.com/...

      Rodriguez did not forthrightly argue that torture—the contained drowning of waterboarding, slapping and stress positions, keeping detainees in a “cramped confinement box with an insect,” keeping them naked and awake for days on end by any means necessary, holding electric drills to their heads and telling them that their female family members would be raped in Middle Eastern prisonswas an awful necessity when there was no other option. Instead, he underplayed what he and his operatives had done (making suspects “uncomfortable”) and bragged about its use in proving the manhood of the torturer (“We needed to get everybody in government to put their big boy pants on and provide the authorities that we needed”; “The objective is to let him know there’s a new sheriff in town.”). He talked as if torture were an expression of strength, rather than momentary domination masking the most abject moral and practical weakness.
      That sour mix of false pride and real shame runs through Rodriguez’s story. One of the acts he is best known for is the destruction of ninety-two video tapes documenting the multiple waterboardings of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the September 11th attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, an alleged Al Qaeda operative, in secret prisons—tapes that he had been explicitly told to preserve as part of an official investigation. (As Dana Priest notes, a minor, mechanical disclosure in his book is that the means of destruction was an industrial-strength shredder that “can chew through hundreds of pounds of material in a single hour,” with “five spinning and two stationary blades.”) Rodriguez loudly repeats that he had authorization for everything he did—that he was a good soldier—and then smashed up the best evidence, saying that they were “ugly visuals” and would endanger his men. Whether the danger was legal or from “terrorists” is ambiguous; the ugliness, though, is clear.
      (emphasis mine)

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:28:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site