Skip to main content

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.


Last week, touching down in India on his way to Afghanistan,  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta described reality as you seldom hear  it in the confines of Washington and, while he was at it, put his stamp  of approval on a new global doctrine for the United States.  Panetta is,  of course, the man who, as director of the CIA, once called its drone air campaign in the Pakistani borderlands “the only game in  town.”  (At the time, as now, it was a classified, “covert” set of air  strikes that were a secret to no one in Washington, Islamabad, or  anywhere else on Earth.)

In India, expressing his frustration over U.S. relations with Pakistan, he spoke the “W-word” aloud for the first time.  “We are,” he told his Indian hosts, “fighting a war in the FATA [the Pakistani tribal areas].”  How true.  Washington has  indeed long been involved in a complex, confusing, escalating, and  undoubtedly self-defeating partial war with Pakistan, never until now  officially called by that name, even as the intensity of the drone air  campaign in that country’s borderlands continues to ratchet up.  So give Panetta credit for rare bluntness.

In India, he said something else previously unspoken,  acknowledging a breathtaking new reality: "We have made it very clear  that we are going to continue to defend ourselves. This is about our  sovereignty as well."  In other words, he claimed that, while the  sovereignty of other countries might be eternally violable, U.S.  sovereignty extends inviolably over Pakistani territory.  This is, in  fact, the concept that underpins the use of drones there and elsewhere.  When it comes to its  presidential version of war-making, only the U.S. has a claim to global  sovereignty, against which the more traditional concept of national  sovereignty doesn't stand a chance.

In Washington, a controversy has now broken out over what are clearly administration leaks about our drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and our new cyberwar against Iran.  It’s clear enough that, in its urge to run a  Republican-proof election campaign on the image of a tough-guy  president, those in the Oval Office, themselves fierce anti-leakers in other circumstances, didn’t know when to stop leaking information  they considered advantageous to the president and so badly overplayed  their hand.  Now, as prosecutors from the Justice Department (one with a  pedigree that should leave the administration shaking in its combat boots) are being appointed to look into the leaks, all bets should be off in the capital.  Hold  onto your hats, tell your journalist friends that, as the investigations  begin, they are the ones likely to find themselves in the hottest  water, and expect almost anything in the coming months.

One thing won’t happen, though.  You’re not going to get tons more  Panetta-style realism.  It’s clear that all of Washington's players,  however intensely they might argue with one another, will be pulling  together to shut down those leaks and any others heading our way.  We at  TomDispatch are convinced, on the other hand, that its time to open the  faucets, turn those drips into a steady stream, and let the American  people know just what is being done, what wars (even when not called  wars) are being fought in their name, what new weaponsare being released into the world with their imprimatur (if not their knowledge).

It’s with some pride, then, that TomDispatch turns to its whistleblower-in-residence, State Department official Peter Van Buren, author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,  to offer his take on what this controversy really means for us all and  just how it looks to someone who has been on the other end of the Obama  administration’s fierce crackdown on governmental truth-tellers, rather  than image-padders. (To catch Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio  interview in which Van Buren discusses how Washington has changed when  it comes to both leaking and stifling information, click here or download it to your iPod here.) Tom

Leaking War
How Obama’s Targeted Killings, Leaks, and the Everything-Is-Classified State Have Fused
By Peter Van Buren

White is black and down is up. Leaks that favor the president are  shoveled out regardless of national security, while national security is  twisted to pummel leaks that do not favor him. Watching their boss, bureaucrats act on their own, freelancing the punishment of  whistleblowers, knowing their retaliatory actions will be condoned. The  United States rains Hellfire missiles down on its enemies, with the president alone sitting in judgment of who will live and who will die by his hand.

The issue of whether the White House leaked information to support  the president’s reelection while crushing whistleblower leaks it disfavors shouldn’t be seen as just another O’Reilly v. Maddow sporting  event. What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a  president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that  he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.

If the President Does It, It’s Legal?

In May 2011 the Pentagon declared that another country’s cyber-attacks -- computer sabotage, against the U.S. -- could be considered an “act of war.” Then, one morning in 2012 readers of the New York Times woke up to headlines announcing that the Stuxnet worm had been dispatched into Iran’s nuclear facilities to shut down its computer-controlled centrifuges (essential to nuclear fuel processing) by order of President Obama and executed by the US and Israel. The info had been leaked to the paper by anonymous “high ranking officials.” In other words, the speculation about Stuxnet was at an end. It was an act of war ordered by the president alone.

Similarly, after years of now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t stories about drone attacks across the Greater Middle East launched “presumably” by the U.S., the Times (again) carried a remarkable story not only confirming the drone killings -- a technology that had morphed into a policy -- but noting that Obama himself was the Great Bombardier. He had, the newspaper reported, designated himself the final decision-maker on an eyes-only “kill list” of human beings the United States wanted to destroy. It was, in short, the ultimate no-fly list. Clearly, this, too, had previously been classified top-secret material, and yet its disclosure was attributed directly to White House sources.

Now, everyone is upset about the leaks. It’s already a real Red v. Blue donnybrook in an election year. Senate Democrats blasted the cyberattack-on-Iran leaks and warned that the disclosure of Obama’s order could put the country at risk of a retaliatory strike. Republican Old Man and former presidential candidate Senator John McCain charged Obama with violating national security, saying the leaks are "an attempt to further the president's political ambitions for the sake of his re-election at the expense of our national security." He called for an investigation. The FBI, no doubt thrilled to be caught in the middle of all this, dutifully opened a leak investigation, and senators on both sides of the aisle are planning an inquiry of their own.

The high-level leaks on Stuxnet and the kill list, which have finally created such a fuss, actually follow no less self-serving leaked details from last year’s bin Laden raid in Pakistan. A flurry of White House officials vied with each other then to expose ever more examples of Obama’s commander-in-chief role in the operation, to the point where Seal Team 6 seemed almost irrelevant in the face of the president’s personal actions. There were also “high five” congratulatory leaks over the latest failed underwear bomber from Yemen.

On the Other Side of the Mirror

The Obama administration has been cruelly and unusually punishing in its use of the 1917 Espionage Act to stomp on governmental leakers, truth-tellers, and whistleblowers whose disclosures do not support the president's political ambitions. As Thomas Drake, himself a victim of Obama’s crusade against whistleblowers, told me, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system, where political gain is now incentive for leaking and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution.”

The Obama administration has charged more people (six) under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. (Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history, one being Daniel Ellsberg, of Nixon-era Pentagon Papers fame.) The most recent Espionage Act case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, charged for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists about the horrors of waterboarding. Meanwhile, his evil twin, former CIA officer Jose Rodriguez, has a best-selling book out bragging about the success of waterboarding and his own hand in the dirty work.

Obama’s zeal in silencing leaks that don’t make him look like a superhero extends beyond the deployment of the Espionage Act into a complex legal tangle of retaliatory practices, life-destroying threats, on-the-job harassment, and firings.  Lots of firings.

Upside Down Is Right Side Up

In ever-more polarized Washington, the story of Obama’s self-serving leaks is quickly devolving into a Democratic/Republican, he-said/she-said contest -- and it’s only bound to spiral downward from there until the story is reduced to nothing but partisan bickering over who can get the most advantage from those leaks.

But don’t think that’s all that’s at stake in Washington. In the ever-skittish Federal bureaucracy, among the millions of men and women who actually are the government, the message has been much more specific, and it’s no political football game. Even more frightened and edgy than usual in the post-9/11 era, bureaucrats take their cues from the top. So expect more leaks that empower the Obama Superman myth and more retaliatory, freelance acts of harassment against genuine whistleblowers. After all, it’s all been sanctioned.

Having once been one of those frightened bureaucrats at the State Department, I now must include myself among the victims of the freelancing attacks on whistleblowers. The Department of State is in the process of firing me, seeking to make me the first person to suffer any sanction over the WikiLeaks disclosures. It’s been a backdoor way of retaliating for my book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, which was an honest account of State’s waste and mismanagement in the “reconstruction” of Iraq.

Unlike Bradley Manning, on trial under the Espionage Act for allegedly dumping a quarter million classified documents onto the Internet, my fireable offense was linking to just one of them at my blog. Just a link, mind you, not a leak. The document, still unconfirmed as authentic by the State Department even as they seek to force me out over it, is on the web and available to anyone with a mouse, from Kabul to Tehran to Des Moines.

That document was discussed in several newspaper articles before -- and after -- I "disclosed" it with my link. It was a document that admittedly did make the U.S. government look dumb, and that was evidently reason enough for the State Department to suspend my security clearance and seek to fire me, even after the Department of Justice declined to prosecute. Go ahead and click on a link yourself and commit what State now considers a crime.

This is the sort of thing that happens when reality is suspended in Washington, when the drones take flight, the worms turn, and the president decides that he, and he alone, is the man.

What Happens When Everything Is Classified?

What happens when the very definitions that control life in government become so topsy-turvy that 1984 starts looking more like a handbook than a novel?

I lived in Taiwan when that island was still under martial law. Things that everyone could see, like demonstrations, never appeared in the press. It was illegal to photograph public buildings or bridges, even when you could buy postcards nearby of some of the same structures. And that was a way of life, just not one you’d want.

If that strikes you as familiar in America today, it should. When everything is classified -- according to the Information Security Oversight Office, in 2011 American officials classified more than 92,000,000 documents -- any attempt to report on anything threatens to become a crime; unless, of course, the White House decides to leak to you in return for a soft story about a heroic war president.

For everyone else working to create Jefferson’s informed citizenry, it works very differently, even at the paper that carried the administration’s happy leaks. Times reporter Jim Risen is now the subject of subpoenas by the Obama administration demanding he name his sources as part of the Espionage Act case against former CIA officer Jeffery Sterling. Risen was a journalist doing his job, and he raises this perfectly reasonable, but increasingly outmoded question: “Can you have a democracy without aggressive investigative journalism? I don't believe you can, and that's why I'm fighting.” Meanwhile, the government calls him their only witness to a leaker’s crime.

One thing at stake in the case is the requirement that journalists aggressively pursue information important to the public, even when that means heading into classified territory.  If almost everything of importance (and much that isn’t) is classified, then journalism as we know it may become… well, illegal.

Sometimes in present-day Washington there’s simply too much irony for comfort: the story that got Risen in trouble was about an earlier CIA attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, a plot which failed where Stuxnet sort of succeeded.

The End

James Spione, an Academy Award-nominated director who is currently working on a documentary about whistleblowers in the age of Obama, summed things up to me recently this way: “Beneath the partisan grandstanding, I think what is most troubling about this situation is the sense that the law is being selectively applied. On the one hand, we have the Justice Department twisting the Espionage Act into knots in an attempt to crack down on leaks from ‘little guys’ like Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou, while at the same time an extraordinarily detailed window into covert drone policy magically appears in the Times.

"Notwithstanding Mr. McCain's outrage, I don't believe this is about security at all. It is the unfair singling out of whistleblowers by a secrecy regime that is more than anything just another weapon in the state's arsenal to bludgeon its enemies while vaunting its supposed successes -- if you can call blowing up unsuspecting people, their families, and friends with a remote control airplane 'success.'"

Here is the simple reality of our moment: the president has definitively declared himself (and his advisors and those who carry out his orders) above the law, both statutory and moral. It is now for him and him alone to decide who will live and who will die under the drones, for him to reward media outlets with inside information or smack journalists who disturb him and his colleagues with subpoenas, and worst of all, to decide all by himself what is right and what is wrong.

The image Obama holds of himself, and the one his people have been aggressively promoting recently is of a righteous killer, ready to bloody his hands to smite “terrorists” and whistleblowers equally. If that sounds Biblical, it should. If it sounds full of unnerving pride, it should as well.  If this is where a nation of laws ends up, you should be afraid.


Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran Foreign Service Officer at the State Department, spent a year in Iraq as Team Leader for two State Department Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Now in Washington and a TomDispatch regular, he writes about Iraq, the Middle East, and U.S. diplomacy at his blog, We Meant Well. Since his book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books), was published in 2011, the Department of State has begun termination proceedings against him, after reassigning him to a make-work position and stripping him of his security clearance and diplomatic credentials. To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio interview in which Van  Buren discusses how Washington has changed when it comes to both leaking  and stifling information, click here or download it to your iPod here.

[Disclaimer: The views here are solely those of the author, expressed in his capacity as a private citizen.]

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch, join us on Facebook, and check out the latest TD book, Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050.

Copyright 2012 Peter Van Buren


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

  •  its time to let the American people know (4+ / 0-)
    its time to open the  faucets, turn those drips into a steady stream, and let the American  people know just what is being done, what wars (even when not called  wars) are being fought in their name, what new weapons are being released into the world with their imprimatur (if not their knowledge).

    So many wars in so many countries....

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

    by allenjo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:27:09 AM PDT

  •  magically appears...... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, Shockwave, aliasalias
    “Beneath the partisan grandstanding, I think what is most troubling about this situation is the sense that the law is being selectively applied.

    On the one hand, we have the Justice Department twisting the Espionage Act into knots in an attempt to crack down on leaks from ‘little guys’ like Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou, while at the same time an extraordinarily detailed window into covert drone policy magically appears in the Times.

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

    by allenjo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:30:54 AM PDT

  •  Since when have we been a nation of laws? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt

    When we were violating treaties with the Indians?

    Violating borders with France & Spain/Mexico in the 1800s?

    When President Wilson, Hoover, Eisenhower was sending troops to Central & Latin America on trumped up pre-texts, installing dictators in the process?  

    When we overthrew the democratically elected govt in Iran? The Bay of Pigs?  When the CIA killed Allende? When Nixon bombed Cambodia? When Reagan invaded Grenada? Iran-Contra? When we armed Saddam? When we armed Osama?

    I could go on, but you get the picture.  We've never paid attention to international law, except when it suits our purpose to say that we're following it. But we don't.

    We are not in a war in Pakistan - there was no declaration of war, there is no defined objective or ultimate political end, and ultimately Pakistan will just be another endless part of the military industrial complex.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:48:05 AM PDT

  •  It is time, past time. Well into the fourth year (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, aliasalias

    of Obama's term and over 11 years after the PNAC crew got their "new Pearl Harbor", the only thing that's changed regarding the global military empire and the accompanying police state apparatus is they've become bigger, stronger, more secret, and more insidious.  The Military Industrial Complex has met and surpassed anything Eisenhower envisioned and warned us about over 50 years ago.  With the upcoming budget deficit battle over medicare/SS versus global military empire funding, and the elections, now is certainly the time to push back hard.  

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 09:24:44 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site