Skip to main content

The Washington Post reports that the State Department has proposed firing whistleblower Peter Van Buren.

Van Buren wrote a book (We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People) that exposed massive fraud, waste, and abuse associated with the State Department-led Iraq reconstruction program, including wasted money on the sheep for widows program, pastry classes for underprivileged Iraqi women to open French bakery shops on the bombed out streets of Baghdad, and the money wasted trying to make grass grow in the desert at the multi-million dollar Baghdad embassy.  

Van Buren sent his book through the State Department's pre-clearance policy and the State Department cleared it by default. Now, the State Department seeks to fire Van Buren for telling the unflattering truth about what he saw in Iraq.

The proposed removal is based on a Report of Investigation dated December 2011, but the State Department did not propose removal until after Van Buren filed a retaliation complaint with the revamped Office of Special Counsel.

Van Buren's supervisors admittedly singled him out, and are monitoring all of his online activities taken on his personal time using his personal computer. They have insisted that he "preclear" all of his blog posts, tweets, and other social media activities as well as live radio and TV appearance - all First Amendment-protected activities Van Buren conducts on his personal time. How is anyone supposed to pre-clear a live radio interview?

The proposed removal alleges that Van Buren mishandled sensitive information by linking - NOT leaking - to a publicly-available Wikileaks document on his blog, which contains a disclaimer that Van Buren is writing in his personal capacity and that the State Department does not endorse his views.

The State Department's lame canned quote defending against the retaliation claims offers no explanation as to why the Agency has singled Van Buren out to monitor his social media activities and selectively enforce the policies against Van Buren.

“There are protections within the government for freedom of expression and for whistleblowers,” spokesman Mark C. Toner said. “The State Department has followed process and acted in accordance with the law.”
How does it protect freedom of expression to propose firing an employee for exercising his First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern in his private capacity?

Adding to the trumped-up nature of the charges, the State Department accuses Van Buren of "bad judgment" because he mocked Michele Bachmann and criticized Hillary Clinton's laughing at Libyan leader Qaddafi's death. Does the State Department really need to be told that the First Amendment covers political speech?

From WaPo:

According to a report by the State Department, the agency put him on a watch list for the Secret Service and identified him to Clinton’s security detail as a potential threat.

“I’m a chubby 52-year-old,” Van Buren said. “I’ve never threatened anybody in my life. It’s a cheap shot.”

An Agency that spends so much of its time touting free speech abroad ought to also protect speech at home, especially political speech criticizing government officials.
It’s hard for me to objectively look at this as anything other than revenge and vindictiveness,” Van Buren said from his house in Falls Church.

Jesselyn Radack, national security and human rights director for the Government Accountability Project, which represents Van Buren, said: “It’s awfully curious timing, given the Office of Special Counsel complaint.”

The timing evidences the State Department's retaliatory motive:
September 2010 - Van Buren submits his book for pre-publication review

April 2011 - Van Buren begins his blog (www.wemeantwell.com)

Fall 2011 - AFTER Van Buren's book has been shipped to printers, the State Department alleges the book contains classified information and requests redaction.

Meanwhile, the State Department transfers Van Buren to a meaningless telework position,confiscates his diplomatic passport, suspends his security clearance, and - for a time - bars him from entering any State Department facility.

December 2011 - Date on the "Report of Investigation" used as the basis to propose firing Van Buren, though Van Buren only learned to the Report months later when it was given to him with the proposed firing.  

January 2012 - Van Buren files a whistleblower reprisal complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.

Shortly after the OSC decides to investigate the case - but months after the Report of Investigation was completed - in March 2012, the State Department proposes firing Van Buren.

The proposed removal of Van Buren is transparently retaliatory and intended to send a chilling message to foreign service officers considering blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse at the State Department.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A person that is employed and is using (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, jiffypop, Left In The Cold

    information he gains in his employment has no private capacity.
    Anyway, as an agent of government, this person is prohibited from disrespecting other people's rights to free expression.  He's being paid to do what he's told and, if he's a free agent, then he's not meeting his obligations.

    Also, for all of our laws to be tested as to their validity and Constitutionality, there have to be cases --people charged with violations and trials in court.  That requires opposition.  There has to be a devil's advocate.
    Too long, the Congress has been passing laws without due consideration, relying on a lazy executive not to enforce and an occasional judge to correct egregious mistakes.  Neither promotes respect for the law.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 05:40:37 AM PDT

  •  Bum Rap for a whistleblower. (8+ / 0-)

    Jeez, what else can they do to a guy for speaking up and telling the truth? Oh right, this administration likes to charge whistleblowers under the Espionage Act...

    •  As it's about to do to John Kiriakou any day now. (7+ / 0-)

      It reminds me of the Drake case.  The government has conducted a years-long, multi-million dollar investigation at taxpayer expense and needs to "bring home a scalp."

      So what, if like in the Drake case, the charges are trumped up, and Kiriakou is going to have to spend more than a million dollars defending himself.  

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:06:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Transparent administration? (11+ / 0-)

    This is what Candidate Obama (CO) promised. But there is someone else in the white house.

    Or was he a Manchurian candidate who fooled some of us?

    These attacks on whistle blowers are being done to discourage others to speak out.

    With the collapse of journalism and corporate ownership of the press, and an unengaged public, it is increasingly necessary to have whistle blowers to know what the government is doing and how various efforts are doing.

    With the prosecution under the espionage act, Obama is setting new records of hiding from the public.

    What else has been done in our name, but we don't have any idea about?
     

    •  Also in WaPo today (18+ / 0-)
      Obama administration officials reject charges that they are “trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court,” as ABC News reporter Jake Tapper put it last month.

      Yet, Tapper’s question during a White House briefing drew national attention to a growing sense of unease among whistleblower and good-government types who feel President Obama isn’t fully living up to his billing, despite welcomed appointments to whistleblower-protection agencies. . . . .

      “Obama’s Justice Department has sent a clear message of fear and intimidation by vigorously pursuing prosecutions of whistleblowers and so-called leakers, rather than the people whose misconduct was being disclosed,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 05:56:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is part of the reason politicalcompass.org (6+ / 0-)

      has put the Obama administration at (+6.0, +6.0), firmly in the authoritarian right.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:16:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is this the America that we really want? (5+ / 0-)
      The Obama administration, to make matters worse, has mounted a war not only against those who leak information but those who publish it, including Assange.

      The Obama administration is attempting to force New York Times reporter James Risen to name the source, or sources, that told him about a failed effort by the Central Intelligence Agency to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer, is charged under the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking information about the program to Risen.

      If Risen confirms in court that Sterling was his source, Sterling probably will be convicted. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Espionage Act in a leak case would also remove the legal protection that traditionally allows journalists to refuse to reveal their sources.

      http://www.truthdig.com/...

      Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

      by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:45:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yemeni journalist current example of Obama (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        artisan, allenjo, Emocrat, aliasalias

        administration going after journalist who reports stuff they don't like, as Glenn Greenwald reported yesterday, Obama’s personal role in a journalist’s imprisonment, and as Amy Gooman featured on Democracy Now! this morning.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was Shaye’s journalism that led (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Emocrat, aliasalias, Don midwest

          Thanks for the link, lysias. I read a bit yesterday, but this is a great article.

          It was Shaye’s journalism that led Amnesty International to show the world the evidence that it was the U.S. which had perpetrated the attack using cluster bombs, and media outlets to reveal the horrifying extent of the civilian deaths.

          Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

          by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:14:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  when President Obama intervened (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Emocrat, aliasalias, Don midwest
          Despite that important journalism — or, more accurately, because of it — Shaye is now in prison, thanks largely to President Obama himself. For the past two years, Shaye has been arrested, beaten, and held in solitary confinement by the security forces of Saleh, America’s obedient tyrant. In January, 2011, he was convicted in a Yemeni court of terrorism-related charges — alleging that he was not a reporter covering Al Qaeda but a mouthpiece for it — in a proceeding widely condemned by human rights groups around the world. “There are strong indications that the charges against [Shaye] are trumped up and that he has been jailed solely for daring to speak out about US collaboration in a cluster munitions attack which took place in Yemen,” Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, told Scahill. The Yemen expert, Johnsen, added: “There is no publicly available evidence to suggest that Abdulelah was anything other than a journalist attempting to do his job.”

          Shaye’s real crime is that he reported facts that the U.S. government and its Yemeni client regime wanted suppressed. But while the imprisonment of this journalist was ignored in the U.S, it became a significant controversy in Yemen. Numerous Yemeni tribal leaders, sheiks and activist groups agitated for his release, and in response, President Saleh, as the Yemeni press reported, had a pardon drawn up for him and was ready to sign it. That came to a halt when President Obama intervened...

          http://www.salon.com/...

          Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

          by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:30:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  President Obama - we hardly knew yee (0+ / 0-)
            As we now know, on December 17, 2009, President Obama ordered an air attack — using Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs — on the village of al Majala in Yemen’s southern Abyan province; the strike ended the lives of 14 women and 21 children.
            It was Shaye’s journalism that led Amnesty International to show the world the evidence that it was the U.S. which had perpetrated the attack using cluster bombs, and media outlets to reveal the horrifying extent of the civilian deaths.
            http://www.salon.com/...

            Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

            by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 03:01:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  speaking of discouraging others... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:14:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why am I not surprised? (9+ / 0-)

    The government continues to punish public servants who are honest with the public and give an unflattering view of the U.S. Under an administration that supposedly touts government transparency, the outright challenge to transparency brought on by whistleblowers perhaps suggests they only mean to be "open" about information that makes them look good.

  •  There's no constitutional right to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jiffypop, FG, GoGoGoEverton

    work for the State Department.  It's true that he should be able to say any of these things without fear of arrest.  It's not true that actively  actively and with extreme hyperboleand regularly trashing your boss on a blog won't get you fired in most circumstances.

    If he reflexively opposes virtually everything about US foreign policy, he's really not qualified to help carry it out, is he?

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 05:55:18 AM PDT

    •  Supreme Court would disagree (11+ / 0-)

      There IS a First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern, even for public employees:

      This Court has also indicated, in more general terms, that statements by public officials on matters of public concern must be accorded First Amendment protection despite the fact that the statements are directed at their nominal superiors.
      Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (holding that the First Amendment protects speech when an employee spoke on issues of public concern and the speech did not disrupt normal operations).

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:00:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He thinks Obama is Hitler. He is unfit for a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jiffypop, FG

        security clearance, and that's that for a State Department employee of that level.  Maybe he can stamp visas or something.

        Moreover, Pickering did not call his superintendent a Nazi or indicate that he opposed all aspects of school curricula.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:08:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You refer to obvious satire (7+ / 0-)

          to point out the dangerous precedent set by the Obama administration claiming it has the power to unilaterally assassinate American citizens without charge or trial.

          The US-sanctioned assassinations of native-born American Citizen al Zawaki and his 16 year old American Citizen son were the unspoken centerpieces of Uberfurher Holder’s speech. Those murders were carried out using US military drones, bureaucratically assigned to CIA “control” in the air over Yemen. The illusion of CIA (i.e., civilian) control of the drones even though it was likely a pair of rugged military hands on the stick is needed to keep within the letter of the law Obama still wishes to follow, those still-secret naughty post 9/11 decrees that grant the CIA hunting rights to the entire planet. Military actions abroad require more internal US government paperwork, so whenever a drone strike will cross that bureaucratic line, they just say it was a CIA op. Indeed, the kill mission that whacked bin Laden was officially classified as a CIA op, even though the murderers were US military Seal Team 6 members in uniform. Nice to know there are still some rules, right?
          http://wemeantwell.com/...

          Is every government employee who makes a sarcastic remark about the President unfit?

          My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:26:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you (0+ / 0-)

          seem to be under the assumption that it s you that has final responsibility for interpreting the Consitution. You are mistaken. Supreme Court decisions have more weight than legislative action (by design). You can say "I don't like it", but what USSC says is all there is for interpretation of law.

          Please encourage all to vote by absentee ballot

          by Killer on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:32:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Van Buren compared the President to Hitler. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jiffypop, ballerina X, FG, GoGoGoEverton
    Uberfurher der Obama Reich Eric Holder of course famously announced this week that the Government of the United States now asserts that it has the legal right to kill American Citizens (foreigners were always fair game) abroad when Der Furher determines said Americans are terrorists. If you have not read my renunciation of this horrific turn of events, please do read it on this blog, or at the Huffington Post.
    .   .
    Yeah, why on earth would the state department not have a useful position for someone who thinks the US President is like Hitler?  I mean, spiteful lunatics are incredibly good team players.

    http://wemeantwell.com/...

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:01:12 AM PDT

    •  Once again... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, ballerina X, GoGoGoEverton

      The details tell a different story. Good find Geek.

      Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

      by jiffypop on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:15:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obvious satire is certainly protected (15+ / 0-)

      by the First Amendment.

      Van Buren was writing on the FBI Director testifying that he was unsure if he could order an assassination against an American citizen in the US:  

      Mueller, appearing before a House subcommittee, said that he simply did not know whether he could order an assassination of his own against an American here in the US. “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not” and added “I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.”

      Note that Mueller indeed had the option of saying flat-out “No, no, the FBI can’t order an American killed in the US” or maybe “No, even the President can’t order a hit on an American here in the US where the full judicial system, Constitution and other protections apply.”

      Nope, Mueller did not say those things.

      Instead, in 2012 under oath before Congress, the senior G-man of the United States, who to get his job had had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, was so worried about perjury that he was unable to say whether or not the US government can indeed kill, murder and otherwise assassinate one of its own Citizens inside the United States without trial

      Clearly a matter of public concern.

      http://wemeantwell.com/...

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:23:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfit for security clearance, per se. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jiffypop, ballerina X, GoGoGoEverton

        The guy has a constitutional right to build a fan page for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  But that would similarly disqualify him from a security clearance.

        People who call Obama a Nazi cannot be trusted to help Obama carry out foreign policy.  And that is the purpose of the state dept.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:28:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Van Buren is rather insightful and did not (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hastur, allenjo, Emocrat, aliasalias

          call Obama a Nazi. An Uberfuhrer, sure, but not a Nazi.

          If Uberfuhrers don't want to be called Uberfuhrers, they should stop acting like Uberfuhrers.

          •  Yes, "they" should. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            ;)

            If Uberfuhrers don't want to be called Uberfuhrers, they should stop acting like Uberfuhrers.

            Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

            by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:23:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It was a Hitler reference for anyone (0+ / 0-)

            with a 4th grade knowledge of history.

            He referred to Obama as "Der Fuhrer" and the "Obama Reich."

            Dude is a member of wacko nutjob fringe, akin to Randall Terry and Cynthia McKinney.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:02:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Have you ever been through the security clearance (5+ / 0-)

          process?

          I have. And kissing the King's ring is not part of it.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:19:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Being willing to carry out your job is. eom (0+ / 0-)

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:00:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, no it isn't. (5+ / 0-)

              Except in the extremely narrow area of how one handles classified information in one's possession; and the degree to which one may be persuaded or coerced to mishandle it.

              Nothing more.

              Suggesting that someone should lose their clearance because one says mean or hyperbolic things about a public official, as you have done, speaks to a deep ignorance of the process.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:05:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The bottom line is that someone (0+ / 0-)

                who views the President as the equivalent of Adolf Hitler can almost be guaranteed to act like an internal saboteur if granted access to confidential information under that President.

                Amongst the qualifications under the State Dept for security clearance:

                Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process
                (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.
                So, no, some nutjob who refers to the SEALS who killed bin Laden as "murderers" and who thinks Obama=Hitler cannot be counted on to safeguard confidential information.

                In fact, you could bet money he'd blab to the press the first chance he got.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is a ridiculous statement; application (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  420 forever, Jarrayy, aliasalias

                  thereof would cause a purge of the civil service every time the executive changes hands.

                  Political opinions are protected, and are never presumed to be a priori to be cause to deny or revoke a clearance, unless is affiliated with or has advocated the forcible overthrow of the US government.

                  As I said, I've been through the process. And you clearly have zero understanding of it.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:19:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  State Department personnel are more than (0+ / 0-)

                    civil servants.  They carry out the foreign policy of the President and Secretary of State.

                    To the degree they have expressed a complete unwillingness to do that, but rather view the President and Secretary of State as the embodiment of evil, they are manifestly unfit for any kind of job carrying out that foreign policy.

                    Having this guy work on foreign policy would be like having DSK counsel rape victims.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:28:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As I said, there is not now, nor has there ever (0+ / 0-)

                      been a requirement, to kiss the King's ring to hold a security clearance from either the state department nor the DoD.

                      The fictionalized Sir Thomas Moore and Roper had an exchange relevant to this topic in "A Man for all Seasons". I recommend perusing it.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:32:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There's a difference between kissing the ring (0+ / 0-)

                        and not being willing to carry out the job duties.

                        This guy has given more than ample evidence that he is unwilling to help carry out the policy goals of the Department of State and exercise discretion in handling of classified information.

                        He's qualified to stamp visas.  Other than that, there's no constructive role for him.

                         

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:39:39 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Are massive fraud and waste of taxpayer money (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Emocrat, aliasalias

                          part of the Dept of State's policy goals? Are you suggesting he should be punished for improperly handling this information? I'm not sure where you're trying to get with this.

                          “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

                          by 420 forever on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:42:46 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm stating that someone who states that (0+ / 0-)

                            President Obama is equivalent Adolf Hitler is incapable of serving effectively as a diplomat under President Obama.

                            Certainly he lacks judgment and discretion, in addition to his questionable commitment to serving the United States.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:45:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I think... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      420 forever, Jarrayy, aliasalias

                      you're taking this to an extreme that just isn't warranted.  Someone can call their boss a complete Nazi just because they are pissed off.  That doesn't mean they can't do their job.  Some of you are elevating these people in the Obama Admin, especially Obama, to iconic levels, when they are just Americans like we are.  They are elected officials, they are not deities.  Elected by gobs of money, I should add.  

                      •  Would you carry out the foreign policy (0+ / 0-)

                        of someone you viewed as equivalent to Adolf Hitler?

                        Would you preserve secrets if they asked you to?

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          aliasalias, 420 forever, Don midwest

                          I wouldn't take it to heart as much as you do.  Because I would assume it was to dig me.  And that's the real problem, because it gives the appearance of a junior high mentality.  Who wouldn't want crime, fraud, and waste revealed when we are all paying for it?  Perhaps there are those in the Administration who don't want to be messed with in any way concerning the negative aspects of their performance.  And to be fair, there are a lot of men/women who don't want to be embarrassed, humiliated, or to be called out about mistakes or things done on purpose for gain.  Not all, but certain people don't deal with that well and just love to retaliate.  That's what this is about.  It's retaliation for not being a good team player.  If that's what you think is important, so be it.  But some of us think that outing waste, fraud, and criminal behavior is more important than going along to get along...or get re-elected.  It's like saying..."Just put the nice sourdough bread on that shit sandwich and serve the damn thing.  They'll eat it.  And for God's sake...don't any of you mention the shit, or else!!!"  

                          •  This would be a much different story (0+ / 0-)

                            if the guy had retired and then written this book.

                            But, when you're a relatively senior diplomat, publicly commenting on your job duties is a very thorny issue to be approached with maximum discretion.

                            To publicly comment that you'd welcome the Secretary of State's death while making a misogynistic comment about her vagina and comparing the President to Adolf Hitler indicates a guy who's simply incapable of exercising the judgment necessary to carry out his job.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:38:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I look at it this way... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Don midwest

                            The juvenile mentality is pervasive in our society and horrifically apparent at the top levels of our govt. on both sides.   I don't take anything these people say seriously.  I'm not sure there are any adults in the room.  I'm complete cynical, because I feel like a game is being played.   We, the taxpayer, are completely outside the playing field, but we are the only ones who could get hurt.  This guy doesn't need good judgement, because it doesn't seem to be required for any job in Washington....in my opinion.  You just have to go along to get along and nothing bad will happen to you.  He forgot this rule.  

                          •  I have a few questions. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            aliasalias, 420 forever, Don midwest

                            Is the name calling worse or more important than the reason for the whistle blowing in your mind?  Do the revelations take a back seat to his characterizing the President as a fuhrer or saying nasty things about Hillary?  

                          •  Saying that stuff about the people (0+ / 0-)

                            whose policies your job is to carry out indicates (a) a profound lack of professionalism, judgment, discretion and fitness for a diplomatic function (or an office temp, for that matter); and (b) a blatant indication that the person will not do his job if that job is to carry out their policy goals.

                            The disclosure stuff is kinda meh--no he didn't reveal anything earth-shattering or that would harm national security, but at the same time if you don't respect the process around the disclosure rules as a diplomat, it's very hard to claim you're suitable for the job.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:14:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            420 forever, Don midwest

                            I'm trying to figure out how to say this without sounding like I'm being incredulous or nasty...(because I appreciate the debate)...but

                            It's more important to you to be professional, ect (keep your nose to the grind stone) and carry out administrative policy (being a team player), AND in doing so turn your back on illegal or unethical behavior, and just do your job, BECAUSE the ends will justify the means, hopefully?  Is that what you are saying?  

                            You are also saying huge wastes of money and corruption are the norm, so it's not a big issue unless our national security is at risk?  And you have to play by the rules given to you...end of story.  Is that how I'm reading that?    

                            Thanks for answering.  

                          •  No, I'm saying that if you act like a psychotic (0+ / 0-)

                            stalker ranting about Hillary Clinton's vagina, willfully flout State Department disclosure rules, and refer to Barack Obama as a Nazi, you're manifestly unfit to serve this country as a diplomat.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:32:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So...in general (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Don midwest

                            You are not concerned with what he did, but how he carried it out at the end like ticked off 12 year old.  

                          •  Yes, with the addition that there (0+ / 0-)

                            is an inherent conflict of interest when you write a book based on your current job--especially when there's a major theme of self-promotion, both in trying to sell books and in making oneself look good at the expense of colleagues and superiors who can't comment on the subject matter.

                            He should have retired, then written this book.  That would have been the honorable thing to do.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:38:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Also... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Don midwest, Geekesque

                            if you want to be taken seriously, don't jump into the gutter.  

                            I still think retaliation towards him is a knee jerk reaction from the guilty.  And we need people who will stick their necks out, but for the good of our country and nothing else.  I also think the insane amount of corruption by the military needs to be addressed in a quick minute.  History shows what can and will happen if we allow it to continue....and none of it is good.  Thanks for the chat, and I really appreciate your honest answers and civility.  

                          •  The initial decision to launch an (0+ / 0-)

                            inquiry was at least  a bit heavy-handed.

                            But, he certainly went into self-destruct mode after that.

                            Sometimes a little bad spirals into a great big terrible.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 11:29:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Geekesque... dare I say ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            ... classic? Hahahaha!

                            Again, a 700-word, one-sided essay which purports to explain the type of detailed and fact-intensive situation that would take a lawyer 2 weeks to comprehend from this diarist.

                            If this whack job hired me to be his lawyer, I would have to make sure the Judge gave me at least a month to get up to speed -- with that much time to devote wholly to his case -- and I sure as hell wouldn't take anything he said to me as verbatim truth, but would have to investigate each written statement, action and utterance.  

                            P.S.  I also guess the First Amendment protects diarists who have a "book" on the subject and "clients" -- especially if they want to write more books and represent more clients. This stuff is less entertaining and effective, but more a true representation of capitalism than a Pos-T-Vac erectile dysfunction infomercial.  (I'm just kidding, that was a joke! They don't both suck!).  : )

                            Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

                            by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 03:35:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Indeed, your argument is identical to that made (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  420 forever, Jarrayy, Emocrat, aliasalias

                  by Bush's authoritarian followers, who presumed that vocal disapproval of their beloved President was sufficient cause to presume not only disloyalty, but criminal and treasonable intent.

                  Bush, however, was never America Incarnate; nor is Obama. And fortunately our system survived "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (as Bush's authoritarian followers coined it) with security clearances, and it will survive "Obama Derangement Syndrome" with the same.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did any career foreign service people (0+ / 0-)

                    publish blogs indicating they thought Bush was a genocidal Nazi dictator and expressing blanket opposition to US foreign policy?

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:41:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not just foreign service people, DoD people, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      aliasalias

                      contractors for both, and so on. You do remember the Bush administration, don't you?

                      Our system asks us to be loyal to the country, not to a President or his policies. Political opinions that fall short of advocacy of violent overthrow are given the highest protection.

                      Why? Because of people making arguments you're making - that the measure of loyalty to country is the measure of loyalty to one man.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:53:31 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He threatened Hillary Clinton: (0+ / 0-)
                        “Chortling over anyone’s death is a disgrace, though we all may now smile a bit at yours.”
                        Deleted since then.

                        He also deleted a reference to her feminine parts.

                        He's a nutjob.

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:58:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Loyalty to country (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        aliasalias

                        During the darkest days of the Bush administration, it would have been inconcievable that we would be dealing with these actions today, under a Democratic president, who said he would have the most transparent administration ever.

                        We can be loyal to our country, while condemning what we see to be wrong, whether a Bush or an Obama presidency.

                        Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

                        by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:23:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  The Obama supporters are out in force again (11+ / 0-)

    One can see them working in the comments on this diary

    Whenever someone points out the civil liberties continuance of Bush policies, and the ongoing actions to shut down information to the public, and other statements about what Obama is actually doing,  

    there is an outpouring of "Obama is Wonderful" comments

    or, "you are bad for criticizing wonderful Obama"

    What if Obama actually worked with the left rather than keeping them at arms length and at times, as in the comments of Rham when he was at the White House, criticizing "professional liberals."

    •  From Politico yesterday (11+ / 0-)
         President Barack Obama has forged a surprising consensus on opposite ends of the political spectrum: They wonder how on earth he gets away with it.

          A series of recent moves — from aggressively filling his reelection war chest to green-lighting shoot-to-kill orders against an American terror suspect overseas — would have triggered a massive backlash if George W. Bush had tried them, say former Bush administration officials and a few on the political left.
          . . .
          “Virtually all the Democrats who were apoplectic about Bush and were constantly complaining about him ‘trampling on our values’ over eavesdropping and detention have been silent about assassination, even though it’s so much more severe,” Greenwald said. “It isn’t that Obama is necessarily any worse on civil liberties than Bush. The point is he’s able to get away with so much more.”
          . . . ..

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:32:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Don... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, GoGoGoEverton

      ....is  President Obama a Nazi or a Manchurian Candidate?

      This is what Candidate Obama (CO) promised. But there is someone else in the white house.

      Or was he a Manchurian candidate who fooled some of us?

      Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

      by jiffypop on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:39:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Neither (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilK

        I can't find the exact comment to a Glenn Greenwald column, but this is a fairly accurate summary. Glenn's column included pointing out what Obama had said vs. what he has done, e.g., continuing W. Bush's policies eroding civil liberties.

        The comment paraphrased here:

        It is unfair to criticize President Obama does compared with what Candidate Obama (CO) said.

        From any knowledge of administration I know, no one is president. People like Gietner/ etc (don't recall which people he listed like the Secretary of Education) these people make the policy.

        Obama is the one who decides Yes or No.

        (Back to Don - thus Obama is not really president, he is the decider)

      •  There is a vast difference between Candidate Obama (4+ / 0-)

        and President Obama. Perhaps he did fool us a bit?

        Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

        by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:27:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  One certainly can..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilK
      One can see them working in the comments on this diary

      Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

      by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:44:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don, the real world doesn't work like you'd (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      want it to. In the private sector, in the public sector, I cannot refer (even 'satirically") to my boss/bosses as Nazi figures, call extremely popular American forces "murderers" in the context of the Bin Laden takedown, etc without getting my butt booted out the door. No way, no how, no nothing. It is absolutely ridiculous that this guy expects to keep his job, and that you're OK with that.

      You, Jesselyn, etc would NEVER write or support this diary if the subject was a conservative and writing about abortion instead of foreign policy. It's the same thing...this behavior is WAY out of line and it HURTS your credibility when you are writing about real problem areas, like Thomas Drake's.

      Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 06:49:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Try this on for size (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hastur, allenjo, Robobagpiper, aliasalias

        This recent column by Chris Hedges about whistle blowers and the use of the espionage act to shut off the  Americans knowing what the government is doing.

        http://www.truthdig.com/...

        •  But aren't you implying that this isn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque

          whistleblowing, it's just simple satirical blogging that is protected per Pickering?

          Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:10:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Top Secret America (5+ / 0-)

          We live in a country that has over 850,000 people holding
          top secret security clearances. That is chilling enough, but to have these whistleblowers charged under the Espionage act and to remain silent, as we watch our liberties being swept away is even more so.

          The Supreme Court has yet to hear a leak case involving the Espionage Act.

          But one of these six cases will probably soon reach the court. If it, as expected, rules that the government is permitted to use the Espionage Act against whistle-blowers, the United States will have a de facto official secrets act.

          A ruling in favor of the government would instantly criminalize all disclosures of classified information to the public. It would shut down one of the most important functions of the press. And at that point any challenges to the official versions of events would dry up.

          Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

          by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:11:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No doubt people with Security Clearances (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, lysias, aliasalias

            say and do things that could be considered "bad judgment" or "in poor taste" every day.

            And I'm not even talking about the people who are violating the basic human rights and dignities of others by urniating on dead bodies.
            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            Certainly, these marines are more due discipline than Peter Van Buren.

            My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

            by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:16:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for that link Don, much important (3+ / 0-)

          information for those of us that care more about the direction of our country with these actions than those who get upset that Obama has been insulted.

          And if Bush was still president, how would we feel about these actions? Perhaps it would be that "this behavior is WAY out of line?"

          “Unauthorized disclosures are the lifeblood of the republic,” Ellsberg said. “You cannot have a meaningful democracy where the public only has authorized disclosures from the government.

          If they [officials] get control, if they can prosecute anybody who violates that, you are kidding yourself if you think you have any kind of democratic control over foreign policy, national security and homeland security. We don’t have a democracy now in foreign affairs and national security. We have a monarchy tempered by leaks. Cut off the leaks and we don’t even have that.”

          Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

          by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:52:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hilarious that you people treat "Obama (0+ / 0-)

      supporter" as some kind of epithet or insult.  I guess in the Nader/McKinney imagination it is.

      This is a Democratic partisan blog.  So, yeah, you're going to find people who want him re-elected.  Too bad that you disagree.

      Also, people who don't think that a guy who views Obama as equivalent to Adolf Hitler can be trusted with classified state department materilals.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:24:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  criminalize all disclosures of classified info? (4+ / 0-)

    Is this really where we are headed?

    A ruling in favor of the government would instantly criminalize all disclosures of classified information to the public.
    Obama, who serves the interests of the surveillance and security state with even more fervor than did George W. Bush, has used the Espionage Act to charge suspected leakers six times.

    The latest alleged leaker to be charged by the Obama administration under the act is John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer accused of disclosing classified information to journalists about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaida suspect.

    http://www.truthdig.com/...

    Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

    by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:15:52 AM PDT

    •  Even worse:criminalizing disclosure o UNCLASSIFIED (6+ / 0-)

      That's what turned out to be the case in the Drake case.  All the stuff the government alleged to be classified turned out not to be,

      And I think that will turn out to be true in the Kiriakou case.

      Then there's the cousing problem that is "CLASSIFIED," but that has not been properly classified.

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:54:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Silencing dissent...... (5+ / 0-)
        Yet, extreme as use of the Espionage Act against government insiders and whistleblowers may be, it’s only one part of the Obama administration’s attempt to sideline, if not always put away, those it wants to silence.

        Increasingly, federal agencies or departments intent on punishing a whistleblower are also resorting to extra-legal means.

        They are, for instance, manipulating personnel rules that cannot be easily challenged and do not require the production of evidence.

        And sometimes, they are moving beyond traditional notions of "punishment" and simply seeking to destroy the lives of those who dissent.

        Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

        by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:05:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what my entire book is about. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, lysias, allenjo, aliasalias

          For blowing the whistle in the Bush administration, I was forced from my law firm, placed under criminal investigation, referred to the State bars in which I'm licensed as a lawyer, and put on the "No-Fly List."

          What's happening to my clients under Obama is far worse: going to jail.

          My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:10:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  last look into the corrupt heart of empire? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, 420 forever, aliasalias

            more from Chris Hedges....

            The WikiLeaks disclosures—the first in 40 years to approach the scale of the Pentagon Papers—may, if Obama has his way, be our last look into the corrupt heart of empire. Those who have access to information that exposes the lies of the state will, if the Espionage Act becomes the vehicle to halt unauthorized disclosures, not only risk their careers by providing information that challenges the official version of events but almost certainly be given prison sentences.
            Ellsberg has called on those with security clearances to release the modern version of the Pentagon Papers about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He said his only regret was that he did not leak the Pentagon Papers earlier. If the documents had been published in August 1964, he said, rather than 1971, he would have exposed the lie that the North Vietnamese had made an “unequivocal, unprovoked” attack on U.S. destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf. The fabricated attack was used by President Lyndon Johnson to get Congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which authorized the administration to escalate the war. Ellsberg said that there were intelligence officials who in 2002 could have exposed the lies used by the Bush administration to plunge us into a war with Iraq. The failure of these officials to release this evidence has resulted in the deaths of, and injury to, thousands of U.S. soldiers and Marines, along with hundreds of thousands of civilians.
            “Had I or one of the scores of other officials who had the same high-level information acted then on our oath of office—which was not an oath to obey the president, nor to keep the secret that he was violating his own sworn obligations, but solely an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States—that terrible war [the Vietnam War] might well have been averted altogether,” Ellsberg said. “But to hope to have that effect, we would have needed to disclose the documents when they were current, before the escalation—not five or seven, or even two years after the fateful commitments had been made.

            Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

            by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:17:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  that is an eye opening book (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper, 420 forever, allenjo

    I highly recommend it.  I think it is very even handed, given the absurdity of the situations he found himself in.  It is a truly embarassing and shameful depiction of our arrogance at its height.

  •  1st Amendment Job rights (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, aliasalias, BradyB

    It's one thing to criticize your employer if you work for a private organization.  They have every right to take whatever actions they want.  (It's why coaches who criticize NFL referees are so routinely fined).  But the federal government operates in the framework of the constitution as the primary document of rules.  Therefore, its agencies cannot prohibit someone from exercising their constitutional rights and taking action like this is merely meant as a warning to all others who would want to pursue the same course as Van Buren.

  •  Similar thing happened to me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest

    My agency threatened to reprimand me for making a comment critical of my agency in an email to a third party while on my personal time. It was not an abusive comment--just briefly pointing out the inadequacy of the agency's staffing and programs in a very general way.

    When they called me on the carpet and began waving a reprimand proposal in my face, I calmly explained the speech protections of the Constitution.  They withdrew the proposal, but that was not the end of the witch-hunt that targeted not only me (a known whistleblower) but others who had connections with me.

    I mentioned this to "good government" groups in DC as a warning, but no one paid much attention.

  •  Obama speaks on transparency (0+ / 0-)

    Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

    by allenjo on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 01:07:31 PM PDT

  •  I watched your (0+ / 0-)

    interview with Peter Van Buren and Aloyna, and I totally am in agreement with you and Peter. Continue the good work to expose the wrongdoings and abuses of power among the government offices.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site