The sulphurous controversy that began with classified information leaked to Fox News reporter James Rosen was deconstructed by Sergio Munoz writing for Media Matters yesterday. Angry mobs planning to run Holder out of town can put down their pitchforks for now.
Munoz came up with an appeal to reason which we know always works:
The cover sheet specifically indicates the request is not being made to arrest or prosecute Rosen. It further notes that the underlying crime that Rosen may have aided, abetted, or conspired in through his solicitation was the "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," which the text of section 793 of the Espionage Act (referenced in the cover sheet) explains could only be committed by the government official "lawfully" in possession of the classified information, not the reporter. That is, it was the government official's disclosure that was at issue, not Rosen's.
The government official in question, Stephen Kim, is practically invisible in the tale told by rightwingers and other assorted bandwagon riders. Those on the left who are turning themselves inside out with indignation over an imagined federal firearms registry the government’s infringement of First Amendment rights, include Kim as a member of the Beltway Six. He’s a victim of the latest version of The Imaginary Obamas, a new model sold under the name “Worse Than Nixon.”
“Worse Than Nixon” is spineless and tyrannical, incompetent and cunning, all at once, is how the tale goes, because Kim was charged under Title 18 USC 793, aka, the Espionage Act. The allegation isn’t spying, you see, it’s leaking.
Except Kim was working at the State Department with a security clearance which requires his signature on a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement. A peek at Paragraph #4 is sufficient but all the text is relevant.
I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.
An uptick in the number of people charged can’t be ignored. It is cause for concern. Quoting the number isn’t meaningful.
Even if individuals were charged unfairly, and they were, there’s danger in assuming that everyone charged must be innocent. There’s too much at stake to compound earlier errors and the errors are unforgivable and must be rectified.
There’s no reason to include Kim in the same category as real whistleblowers who deserve recognition for the sacrifices they made in service to others. Let’s look at just a couple of illustrative examples.
Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers is the template and a standard. His was a history making disclosure about the politics and the lies that led to an unjustifiable War in Vietnam. 58,000 Americans dead from that fiasco was compelling enough reason for leaking the information he had.
Bradley Manning leaked classified information about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and matters relating to international diplomacy. He wrote a very long, coherent statement explaining the reasons for his actions. Every word rings true. I don’t see any damage from what he disclosed either. I have no doubts about contributing to his cause.
I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on-the-ground reality of the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and [hatred? anger] on both sides.
I began to become depressed with the situation we found ourselves increasingly mired in. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground. In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and on being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.
I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables it could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment everyday.
Thomas Drake leaked information about the government’s new surveillance capabilities and a policy decision to use them for spying on American citizens. He carried the burden of conscience, too, and the unfair consequences for disclosing information that was otherwise unavailable. At least the Espionage Act charges against him were dropped but that doesn’t remediate the damage done.
Stephen Kim
To understand Kim, there's a
web site established for his legal defense fund. That’s where there are details “as told by his sister” and “drawn from conversations with Stephen’s former colleagues.”
Kim’s family immigrated to the US from South Korea in 1976 when he was 9 years old. There was education at Georgetown, Harvard, and Yale. His professional career was influenced by 9-11.
He was leading a comfortable life when September 11 happened. He lost 3 friends that day and he still does not talk about it much. But he told me that he would not just let history pass before him. He was itching to do something but did not know how he could contribute.
Because of his background and academic studies, Stephen was an ideal candidate for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (“Livermore”). He went to the lab in 2002 with a deep and unique understanding of North Korea, and the cultural elements that inform policy. Stephen’s expertise, however, extended well beyond Korea. He had extensive knowledge of East Asian geopolitics, in particular the unspoken prejudices, resentments and assumptions that influence policymaking in and toward Asia.
At the same time, because of his education and experience working in Washington, D.C., when Stephen arrived at Livermore, he had an understanding of the workings of the Washington national security community. Stephen’s prior experience gave him insight into the needs of the Intelligence Community and policymakers, as well as an understanding of their frustration with the seemingly intractable nature of the problems in North Korea. Indeed, as Stephen understood better than anyone, the United States’ efforts to significantly influence North Korean behavior had proved to be largely ineffective.
The bold and italics are mine for emphasis. The whistleblowers cited above were motivated by deep conviction. Was the need for more effective relations with North Korea Kim’s motivating conviction? What did he suggest to obtain better results? His bio says that he “developed a briefing about the state of North Korea” and he found some VIPs for fans.
Stephen had the opportunity to provide his briefing to the Defense Policy Board. When he finished his presentation, I am told the audience was very much taken aback by his penetrating analysis (they had never heard anything put together like this before). Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was in the audience. Stephen’s presentation made such an impression that he was asked to brief Secretary Kissinger again, this time with former Secretary of State Shultz. Following this, he was asked to give his briefing to President Bush’s National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley and Vice President Cheney.
Nice bipartisan crowd !Is it safe to say that Kim was probably not the one who recommended
removing North Korea from the Axis of Evil Club?
Did he object to anything that the new Obama administration implemented in 2009 as he began trading email with Rosen. What could have been behind Rosen’s email quoted in the
search warrant affidavit?
In short: Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.
Here’s the detail in Kim’s portrait that surprised me the most. A personal connection to someone important.
Stephen was acutely aware of, and deeply affected by, the injustices visited upon the people of North Korea by their leaders. He vehemently opposed the regime’s policies and practices and was in touch with dissidents and heroic individuals who were rescuing North Korean escapees. In fact, he had enough personal integrity and credibility that Chun Ki Won, the Oscar Schindler of North Korea, and Kim Sungmin, President of Radio Free North Korea (and a North Korean defector) granted him an in-depth meeting to talk about their on-the-ground experiences and invaluable insights into North Korea.
Chun Ki Won was once
described in a PBS documentary:
Pastor Chun Ki Won is the director of Durihana, a Christian missionary organization that helps North Korean defectors make the treacherous journey along the Asian underground railroad to safety in South Korea.
North Korea
In March 2009, when Kim and Rosen began chatting, Chun Ki Won appeared in the news in connection with
Laura Ling and
Euna Lee, two American journalists from Current TV who were arrested and held by North Korean border guards. For those who don’t remember the story, the exact reason for Ling and Lee’s trip and why they ended up illegally crossing the border between China and North Korea, remained a mystery. Adding a political dimension to the story, Current TV was founded by Al Gore. The two journalists were held for five months. In August, Bill Clinton travelled to North Korea and brought them back. And coincidentally, that’s also when Kim and Rosen stopped chatting.
Chun Ki Won’s involvement in the Laura Ling-Euna Lee episode is something to consider if Kim had ties to him. The New York Times reported that he arranged Laura Ling and Euna Lee’s trip.
. . . Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to free the two journalists, who had traveled to the border area to report on North Korean refugees in China, according to Chun Ki-won, a Christian clergyman in Seoul who helped arrange their trip. Their arrest complicates Washington’s already thorny relations with the North, including an increase in tensions over North Korea’s plan to launch a satellite between April 4 and April 8. (New York Times, March 21, 2009)
Later, details were added to the story which said that Laura Ling and Euna Lee were visiting China to work on production of a documentary about Chun Ki Won's mission and his work with North Korean refugees. But a trip to North Korea wasn’t on their itinerary. Eventually
Chun Ki Won and other pastors involved in his Durihana Mission accused Ling and Lee of exposing his operation and endangering the North Korean defectors they were trying to help.
When Ling and Lee were freed, they responded to Chun Ki Won’s criticism of them.
The journalists also acknowledged that Chun Ki-won, the founder of the Durihana Mission in Seoul, was their “main contact” in arranging their trip. He later said that after their arrests, he smuggled three North Korean women whom the crew had interviewed out of China for fear that their identities had been exposed and that they were vulnerable to arrest or deportation.
“We regret if any of our actions, including the high-profile nature of our confinement, has led to increased scrutiny of activists and North Koreans living along the border,” the reporters said. “Our experiences pale when compared to the hardship facing so many people living in North Korea or as illegal immigrants in China.”
In their nearly 2,000-word statement, the women criticized Mr. Chun, saying they felt that his decision to speak to the media during their detention had potentially endangered them and their sources. Mr. Chun said he had spoken out only in reaction to the South Korean media, which had first reported the detentions.
There’s no proof available to the public to indicate that Kim and Rosen ever discussed Laura Ling and Euna Lee’s situation. But in the timing of key events there's a noteworthy coincidence.
On June 8, Ling and Lee were sentenced to 12 years hard labor. The President stated that he was deeply concerned about them.
Three days later, on June 11, Rosen published an article with language that the administration might have considered dangerous to Ling & Lee:
What's more, Pyongyang's next nuclear detonation is but one of four planned actions the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea . . . The intelligence community only learned of North Korea's plans this week, prompting CIA to alert senior officials
If this was a leak of classified information, it was extremely poor judgment, at the very least, because of the timing. The US continued negotiating the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee with the possibility of more leaks that could have jeopardized or complicated the situation. Under those conditions, an investigation was warranted.
The indictment charging Kim indicates that his statements to law enforcement are contradicted by hard evidence. It also indicates that the matter goes beyond what was disclosed in Rosen’s story.
Does anyone remember the Fox News reaction to Clinton’s successful rescue mission?
Laura Ling and Euna Lee
Fox News’ Dick Morris called Clinton’s trip “awful” and “ridiculous” and suggested that Ling and Lee should “live with the consequences of their decision to go” to North Korea.
Charles Krauthammer complained that North Korea “got a lot” out of the deal and that “it does help the North Koreans in their legitimacy.”
The reaction of the right was
also diaried right here at Kos.
Whether Stephen Kim’s actions were a matter of conscience or principle or something else entirely is something you decide.