Yesterday, the conservative Hudson Institute held an event in which former Bush CIA Director (and National Security Agency (NSA) head during the implementation of the NSA's illegal spying program) Gen. Michael Hayden called the Obama administration's recent dedication to ferreting out and locking up truthtellers a "positive step" that has "begun to chip away at the notion that there are no sanctions" for revealing classified information.
The event promoted Gabriel Shoenfeld's new book Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law. Schoenfeld's book argues that journalists and sources who divulge national security information should be prosecuted for violating espionage laws. Ditto for their sources.
This is abhorrent for a President elected on a platform of transparency and a promise to roll back Bush-era abuse of power.
Schoenfeld's speech to a sea of white-guys-in-silk-ties at the Hudson Institute was predictably pro-secrecy, as was the unapologetic keynote address from Hayden.
However, the real tragedy is that Schoenfeld was able to thank Attorney General Holder for "making this issue timely," and point to the Obama administration's leak prosecutions as evidence of the correctness of government secrecy.
Yesterday, and in the book, Schoenfeld took particular aim at the New York Times, specifically reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, for their Pulitzer Prize-winning story on the NSA's warrentless wiretapping scandal, calling such "leaks" an "assault on democracy itself" and proclaiming that leakers who endanger the public should be met with legal action.
Hayden expressed a similar sentiment, accusing the press of "taking any instance of espionage to the darkest corner of the room."
As scary as it is, as a whistleblower who went to the press myself, to hear Schoenfeld praise the jailing of truthtellers and call for prosecution of the press and sources--and as stomach turning as it is to hear Hayden condemn the government employee who "betrays his oath and reports information" to the press--it is far worse knowing that the Obama administration, despite what Hayden called the "recently fashionable" commitment to transparency, has taken the same position.
I've chronicled the disturbing trend of prosecuting whistleblowers, including the recent indictment of Thomas A. Drake for allegedly "leaking" to the Baltimore Sun information about the NSA's waste of billions of dollars and rejection of a surveillance program that would protect Americans' privacy, the sentencing of 20 months in prison of Shamai Leibowitz after his guilty plea to giving classified information to a blogger, and the grand jury subpoena for of New York Times reporter James Risen's sources. With no real legal protections and, now, the threat of losing their very freedom, many national security whistleblowers find themselves worse off now than during the Bush years.
Afterward (I didn't get called on during the Q&A), I asked Mr. Schoenfeld:
Should leakers be propsecuted for divulging illegal government secrets?
He answered:
I don't think the FISA stuff [warrantless wiretapping] was illegal and have a chapter on that.
My response:
I didn't bring up the FISA scandal, but the fact that you just did speaks for itself.
Mr. Schoenfeld said:
If there is really something to disclose, whistleblower laws will protect you.
I said,
Whistleblower laws don't provide any real protection. Let's be real.
Then, in the icing on the cake of this colloquy . . . wait for it . . .Schoenfeld said,
If someone discloses government secrets, then let a jury of their peers decide whether it was okay.
So, let me get this straight. Individuals who speak truth to power should defend that decision in a criminal investigation (for me, to the tune of $100,000 for an 8-month investigation), and a criminal prosecution (if a private attorney were to defend Thomas Drake, the cost could be in the millions--he is represented by a Public Defender because he has exhausted his financial resources defending himself during the investigatory stage)?
No one suggested that it is the a priori crime (torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) that should be prosecuted! After all, President Obama wants to "look forward, not backwards"--except when it comes to the people who exposed the crimes that helped him get elected on a platform of change.
Shame on you, Mr. President. I will not be contributing to you, campaigning for you, or voting for you in the next election.
P.S. You had to identify yourself when you asked a question. I didn't know if I would draw more ire identifying myself as a:
a. leaker
b. blogger
c. director at the Government Accountability Project