Skip to main content

Going into the Democratic National Convention, I've tried to regain the hope I had when I campaigned for, contributed to, and voted for Obama in 2008. Putting aside the multitude of human rights abuses - drones, assassination, indefinite preventative detention - I was mentally prepared to conjure up some enthusiasm when I was slapped in the face with the Obama campaign's shameful and misleading "Fact Check" on the war on whistleblowers.

First, the Obama campaign takes what should be a badge of shame - criminally prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act - and touts it as somehow "tough on national security."

Second, the campaign steals the line I have been using for two years now: that the Obama administration has brought more prosecutions than all past presidents combined.

Then, the campaign wraps its repugnant message to make it pore palatable by claiming the criticism that the Obama administration has received is coming from a "Swift Boaters" conservative super PAC, when, in fact, critics of the administration's hypocritical use of the Espionage Act to target whistleblowers include everyone from myself, to Glenn Greenwald, to the New York Times.

The Obama campaign should have left the war on whistleblowers alone - and that would have been bad enough. Obama full well knows that the administration's flag ship Espionage Act prosecution against vindicated National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, who went through proper internal channels and never disclosed classified information, collapsed in spectacular fashion days before trial. Apparently the Obama campaign is counting on the American public to have ignored Jane Mayer's must-read investigative piece on Drake's whistleblowing and the fact that the Justice Department dropped all felony charges against Drake.

UPDATED: Glenn Greenwald gets it right in a must-read column today:

Leave aside that this is a total nonsequitur: the fact that Obama has persecuted whistleblowers hardly negates, or even pertains to, the charge that he has leaked classified information when doing so benefits him politically. Indeed, that's precisely what makes his behavior so pernicious: that his administration exploits secrecy laws to punish those who expose high-level wrongdoing while leaking at will for political gain.

More remarkable is that a Democratic presidential candidate is sticking his chest out and proudly touting that he has tried to imprison more whistleblowers on espionage charges than all previous presidents in history combined: more than the secrecy-loving Bush/Cheney White House, more than the paranoid, leak-hating Nixon administration, more than anyone in American history.

The Obama administration's war on whistleblowers -- which the campaign now spins as "tough on national security" -- is really a war on journalists, a point I've been making for years. I also represent Drake and current Espionage Act defendant and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture whistleblower John Kiriakou.  But don't take my word for it.

Here is what others had to say about the case against Thomas Drake.

--The L.A. Times editorial board:

That smacks of retaliation, not legitimate protection of sensitive information.
--The Washington Post editorial board:
Mr. Drake’s prosecution smacks of overkill and could scare others with legitimate concerns about government programs from coming forward.
--Morton Halperin of the Open Society Institute:
Because reporters often retain unauthorized defense documents, Drake’s conviction would establish a legal precedent making it possible to prosecute journalists as spies. “It poses a grave threat to the mechanism by which we learn most of what the government does,” Halperin, says.
--Former classification czar under G.W. Bush, J William Leonard, who was slated to testify as a defense expert for Drake, called the case the most "deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document," he had ever seen.

--Federal Judge Richard D. Bennett, who presided over Drake's case:

The government was deservedly berated by Judge Richard Bennett of Federal District Court in Maryland for an “unconscionable” pursuit of the accused across “four years of hell.”
--Domestic surveillance whistleblower Mark Klein:
Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.”
Far from criticizing Obama for being weak on leaks, neo-con Gabriel Schoenfeld - the brainchild of using the Espionage Act to target the media - told Jane Mayer:
Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon
Meanwhile, the criticism of the record-setting Espionage Act prosecutions is not coming from neo-cons:
Jack Balkin, a liberal law professor at Yale, agrees that the increase in leak prosecutions is part of a larger transformation. “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state,” he says.
The New York Times editorial board echoed that criticism:
The Obama administration has misguidedly used the Espionage Act in five such cases of news media disclosures . ... Treating potentially embarrassing information as a state secret is the antithesis of healthy government.
The Obama campaign's misleading "Fact" Check is even more outrageous considering the FACT that just three months ago, Obama administration officials were telling the New York Times that the record-setting Espionage Act prosecutions were not the result of some policy decision.
Like most presidents, Mr. Obama has been infuriated by some leaks, but aides say he never ordered investigations.
So, when the Espionage Act prosecutions are accurately described as attacks on Free Speech and the media, the Obama administration does not want credit for them, and the "policy" is really just an accident. But, that doesn't stop the Obama campaign from the self-serving, shameless, spin of touting this supposedly "accidental policy" - which should be a badge of shame - as some "tough on national security policy."

Obama should be embarrassed by such transparent spin intended to obscure the truth and ashamed of the way his administration has treated whistleblowers, who Obama himself pledged to protect in 2009.  

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

  •  Move Along - this morning is Michelle Worship n/t (9+ / 0-)

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:24:08 AM PDT

    •  Kudos to Michelle. She rocks. But can't gloss (25+ / 0-)

      over the hard questions--even though it looks like both candidates are happy to do so.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:43:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I felt like I was watching Raygun or the Bushes or (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice

        Pat Buchanan -

        EXCEPT I voted FOR her husband!

        In NOV. '08 when he pulled those scum summers, rahm and geithner into the inner ring, my only hope was that kissing wall street's ass would get us ... a public option at THE MINIMUM ??  and we got Joe-mentum Baucus Well Point Heritage AHIP care !!  

        While I know it is hard to impossible for too many lefties to listen to right wing speeches AND turn off the counter counting all the misdirections, misstatements, obfuscations ... (LIES)  -- we need to listen to their speeches to figure out what they're lying about and how they're lying and why it is working, in order to really destroy the lies. Tomes of Truth don't work.

        Michelle's speech WAS awesome ... and I felt like I was listening to one bullshit promise after another.

        IF you're gonna let those thieving scum on wall street & in the 'health' insurance companies destroy everyone's security, while kissing ass on lies about tax cuts ---

        watching Michelle made be feel like I was watching Raygun - and I did NOT vote for that lying fucker.

        rmm.

        Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

        by seabos84 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:20:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Brilliant Character Defense (13+ / 0-)

      The First Lady provided a superb defense of her husband's own character and values from the unassailable perspective and experience of her life with him - both before the White House and at the White House.  It was clearly a brilliant strategic turning of the tables on the RNC and family values.

      Her speech was deeply personal and she rocked the house.

      It was also compelling, heartfelt and she owned her own words and thoughts.

      And as the first Mom-in-Chief she clearly takes the heat off of the deficiencies in his grand hope and change promises from 4 years ago.

      But still politics, given the stakes for this election.

      Of course she is betting on 4 more years. Why wouldn't she?

      After all, he IS her man.

      The real question is not just about what her family experiences for the next 4 years, but what do the next 4 years bring us collectively as a Nation?

      In that regard, I am profoundly uncomfortable with either choice.

      "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

      by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:57:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, so you were totally prepared to work up... (27+ / 0-)

    enthusiasm for President Obama until you came across this one thing that really made you peeved?

    Please.

    You've written nine zillion Obama-bashing diaries on this site, and, frankly, I have no problem with that. The world needs more gadflies.

    But please stop being disingenuous. The world has that in excess.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:31:36 AM PDT

    •  I was all praise about Obama last night on (34+ / 0-)

      Twitter during the DNC.

      I've been here since 2006 and am a human rights attorney.  I praise generously and eagerly when Obama does things that comport with transparency, due process and the rule of law, but as someone with first-hand experience as a whistleblower under Bush--and now representing whistleblowers under Obama--both have been horrible.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:42:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is it bashing if it's true? (20+ / 0-)

      Please.

      It's just this hero-worship that put the damn left to sleep the last 4 years.

      The next 4 years are going to be better than the last 4 years because, hopefully, the hero-worship will stop and the type of Democratic ideals that were on display on this site during the Bush years will take precedent.

      I can not wait for the cheerleading to end and the real work to begin.

      Again.

      "Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness."

      - Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate

      by Tirge Caps on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:45:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I said... (12+ / 0-)

        I have no problem with the criticism. It's the disingenuousness of the diarist that troubles me.

        In addition, when people write diaries critical of a Democratic president on a Democratic website, they and their supporters should be prepared for the give-and-take that will no doubt ensue.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:05:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You exhibited just the kind of double talk (11+ / 0-)

          BS I can't stand.

          With one hand you say, "I have no problem with that" and with the other hand you say you condemn the writer for her content and volume.

          Which is it, dude?

          "Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness."

          - Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate

          by Tirge Caps on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:13:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you just exhibited the lack of... (14+ / 0-)

            reading-comprehension skills that I find baffling.

            Where did I "condemn" the writer for her content?

            My two points:

            1. The writer is a frequent Obama critic who I believe is being disingenuous when she claims to be "conjuring enthusiasm" for his re-election.

            2. When you criticize a Democratic president on a Democratic website, be prepared for the negative conversation that may follow as a result.

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You just condemned her again. Are you not aware (8+ / 0-)

              of the words coming out of your finger tips?

              You are bitching that she is an Obama critic yet you have no problem with that.

              Which is it?

              You don't have to utter the words, "I condemn you" for your words to mean that.

              School's over, kid. I gotta go to work.

              "Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness."

              - Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate

              by Tirge Caps on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:27:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, I'll try again. (14+ / 0-)

                I'm not looking for an argument here, but I hope I'm making myself clear this time.

                You wrote: You are bitching that she is an Obama critic yet you have no problem with that.

                No, I'm not "bitching" that she's an Obama critic. I'm pointing out the indisputable fact that she's an Obama critic. And no, I have no problem with that because we live in a democracy.

                As I said in my initial comment in this diary, "the world needs more gadflies."

                My complaint with this diary is not the criticism. It's in the disingenuousness of the diarist, pretending as though she's trying to "conjure enthusiasm" for Obama's re-election.

                I can't make myself any more clear.

                How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

                by BenderRodriguez on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:34:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You explained it better than I could (7+ / 0-)

                  While the world needs more gadflies and you have no problem with criticism, she is disingenuous.

                  Got it.

                  Like I said, double talking BS.

                  Meanwhile, her point, a valid one, goes unmentioned by you.

                  You are nit-picking phantoms and not touching the elephant.

                  I seriously have to go to work. Otherwise I could go back and forth with you all day.

                  "Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness."

                  - Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate

                  by Tirge Caps on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:43:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, one final time. (9+ / 0-)

                    The diarist is being disingenuous, I believe, when she claims that she's trying to "conjure enthusiasm" for this president.

                    She's not, however, being disingenuous in her constant criticism of him.

                    And I have no problem with her critique of his presidency.

                    I do, however, have problems with her pretending that she is attempting to support Obama, when nothing could be further from reality.

                    I can't possibly make it any more clear, and I hope you have a good day at work.

                    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

                    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:00:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Disingenuous thinking (9+ / 0-)

                      Context provides meaning. If you actually read her words in context instead of selectively excising "conjure enthusiasm" to the exclusion of everything else you would gain a better appreciation for someone who actively supported, campaigned and voted for Obama in 2008 and now feels much disappointment.

                      Clearly her enthusiasm has waned over the past 4 years as this Administration's record has been mixed.

                      There is no pretense here. You are attempting to derail her genuine attempt to find new hope and change over the next four years, and then label her as disingenuous for simply being honest!

                      So her criticism is fair in your mind, but where she supports or attempts to find hope in this Administration you then question her sincerity?

                      Why not question her criticism as well?

                      Seems quite clear that you are condemning her candor when it suits your need to selectively criticize.

                      How logically convenient.

                      "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

                      by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:21:31 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  When did it become bad form to criticize a (7+ / 0-)

              a president, whether a democrat or not, or on a democratic website or otherwise?

              When you criticize a Democratic president on a Democratic website, be prepared for the negative conversation that may follow as a result.

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

              by allenjo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:23:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  to quote markos (9+ / 0-)

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                If you don't understand that there are legitimate reasons for progressives to be upset at the White House, then you're an idiot. Plain and simple.

                ...If you don't understand that there are legitimate reasons for progressives to be happy by things this White House has accomplished, then you're an idiot. Plain and simple.

                ...But here's the thing -- through Election Day, we need to have a single purpose in mind. I won't say you can't bitch about the Democrats or the president, but if you don't like Obama, you're going to like Mitt Romney even less.

                So what do you think you are accomplishing besides satiating some apparent need for absolute purity? Feel free to unload on Obama the day after he is reelected. But for now, seriously, what do you think you're accomplishing? If Obama offends you so much that you consider him irredeemable, then become a Green and go somewhere else, because you're pretty much hopeless and a waste of everyone else's time here.
                ...We've got an election to win. That's what's important until November.

                If you can't focus on that, then get the hell off this site. Seriously.

                Mitt Romney seems congenitally incapable of inspiring people - Richard Wolfe, 8/15/2012

                by Cedwyn on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:49:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^ (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  psilocynic, stellaluna, Deep Texan, Cedwyn
                •  As for you Roxers -- being an aggressive dick..... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PhilJD, slinkerwink, aliasalias

                  doesn't win votes for the president.

                  Don't play into that dynamic.
                  Are there some who think Obama is irredeemable?

                  Perhaps, but also perhaps many who think he can do so much better and must somehow be challenged to do better.

                  If Obama offends you so much that you consider him irredeemable, then become a Green and go somewhere else, because you're pretty much hopeless and a waste of everyone else's time here.
                  The latest flare up comes from two groups who have been at loggerheads for some time -- those who think Obama is a closet Republican, and those who think he walks on water. (And I'm not even exaggerating that much.)
                  I won't say you can't bitch about the Democrats or the president, but if you don't like Obama, you're going to like Mitt Romney even less.
                  As for you Roxers -- being an aggressive dick doesn't help build support and excitement for the president.

                  He's got a record that you can't change, and a campaign that you can't control. Keep it positive, and keep it productive. That's how you help a campaign.

                  Because when you are a dick, people will hate the campaign just to spite you. It's human nature -- if a dick is for something, we want to be against it. Don't play into that dynamic.

                  "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

                  by allenjo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:02:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you asked a question (0+ / 0-)
                    When did it become bad form to criticize a president, whether a democrat or not, or on a democratic website or otherwise?
                    i answered it.

                    Mitt Romney seems congenitally incapable of inspiring people - Richard Wolfe, 8/15/2012

                    by Cedwyn on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:13:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "i" answered it? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      slinkerwink

                      No, I don't think you did, Cedwyn.

                      You posted part of what Kos said as did I.

                      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

                      by allenjo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:22:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the point here was not to dissect markos' post (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Quicklund

                        you asked:

                        When did it become bad form to criticize a president, whether a democrat or not, or on a democratic website or otherwise?
                        i provided the answer to the question you asked by quoting markos.

                        Mitt Romney seems congenitally incapable of inspiring people - Richard Wolfe, 8/15/2012

                        by Cedwyn on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:40:04 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  bad form to bitch, is that how your feel (0+ / 0-)

                          or that you think Markos feels...

                          I won't say you can't bitch about the Democrats or the president, but if you don't like Obama, you're going to like Mitt Romney even less.

                          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

                          by allenjo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:48:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  What's wrong with criticism (8+ / 0-)

              Wasn't this country founded on profound dissent and disagreement?

              What are progressive Kossacks to do?

              Not hold this Administration accountable for the type of conduct with respect to the 1%, foreign policy and national security that many here roundly condemned during the Bush Administration?

              Should just STFU about the Democrats while bashing the Repubs and then go into the booth in November holding their nose, before they cast their vote?

              Democracy is NOT just about voting for a party out of mere blindfold loyalty.

              This is the time to call for accountability and responsibility going forward - not just accede to 4 more years.

              Being "tough on national security" does NOT include this Administration doing everything in its power to destroy the lives of truth tellers and whistleblowers and criminalizing their holding the government to account - whether Republican or Democrat.

              "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

              by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:45:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, the country was not founded on profound (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan, Quicklund, psilocynic, lcj98

                dissent and disagreement.

                A bunch of colonies seceded and fought a war over it, but the country was not founded on it.

                I really want to take your case as a serious example of whistleblower abuse, but when you editorialize like this it makes it much harder to believe your motives, then and now, were not pure.

                •  agreed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund

                  -You want to change the system, run for office.

                  by Deep Texan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:52:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "were pure"* nt (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  psilocynic
                •  History would say otherwise (6+ / 0-)

                  As would my mother's side of the family.

                  You state that the country was not founded on profound dissent and disagreement.

                  I disagree.

                  The protections provided by the 1st and 4th Amendments, I would argue, were the fundamental basis for the American Revolution because they were so egregiously violated by the King and his officers.

                  I also offer up the counter of the Articles of Confederation - an abysmal failure as the new country was racked by dissent and profound disagreement over many years and almost tore the new country asunder.

                  In 1786, James Madison imagined the Constitution.

                  Why?

                  Because he had to consider forming a new form of government  that would answer the question of how do we best govern ourselves.

                  I think you would now prefer to just personalize my motives and project them onto me, rather than dealing with what I actually blew the whistle on, because I happen to take issue with the Obama Administration?

                  How cognitively convenient.

                  "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

                  by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:31:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, you seem to take issue with a lot more than (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Quicklund

                    the Obama Admin...but yes, imo, to be taken seriously on this issue I would at the very least temper by general dissent, because motive and public opinion matter.

                    The rest of what you wrote out is just silly, sorry. The Constitution and the 2nd iteration of our nation happened because we needed to have MORE agreement, to come together as a more perfect union. It's ludicrous to think people would come together just to argue with each other and not agree on anything.

                    It was founded on an AGREEMENT amongst the leaders of the colonies/states.

                  •  I don't think you'll find much interesting... (0+ / 0-)

                    conversation in these sub threads. You're a whistleblower. You chose to speak the truth, despite political and personal consequences. There's not much to be gained, going back and forth with folks whose primary objective is tempering their take on reality to match political necessity. You faced down that beast at the highest level. Its lackeys have nothing interesting to add once you've had that experience.

                •  Uh, it actually was founded on profound (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ffour, PhilJD, allenjo, greeseyparrot

                  dissent and disagreement. Have you not read the letters from the Founding Fathers to Britain, the protests, the dumping of the tea in Boston Harbor, and the Revolution War? The colonies dissented with how they were being treated by Britain, and seceded because of it.

                  To say our country wasn't founded on dissent and disagreement is rather silly.

                  •  It's silly to think the US just popped up (0+ / 0-)

                    out of disagreement/dissent with GB.

                    Do you guys really see what you're writing? FOUNDED on disagreement/dissent? Nothing gets "founded" on disagreement/dissent....the ELEMENTS of our nation were FREE to form a more perfect union (eventually) because they seceded from Great Britain, but we didn't FOUND our nation because we disagreed with each other. It's such a nonsensical concept...dissenting with GB caused us to split off from them, not to come together afterwards.

                    •  You are ignoring the main reasons as to why (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      allenjo, aliasalias

                      America got formed. If not for the disagreements between the colonies and Britain, and if they had been amicably resolved, we'd still be singing God Save The Queen today.

                      •  US was not formed because they seceded. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        goObama

                        US formed after they gained their independence and then figured out it would be best to come together as a nation. It didn't even work the first time, as Drake notes, and could've gone in another direction, i.e. the southern states forming their own nation or some states staying independent.

          •  Not really. (8+ / 0-)

            BenderRodriquez said he didn't like the diarist's claiming that she was "mentally prepared to conjure up some enthusiasm" for Obama's campaign and then write this diary.  She also claims that " I praise generously and eagerly when Obama does things that comport with transparency, due process and the rule of law" and when her diary history is examined, BenderRodriguez finds that claim false. I would call that disingenuous, too.  I don't see anywhere that Bender had an issue with her content or volume.  

            Jesselyn has strong, well written diaries that shine a light on a very important issue.  But I find it hard to believe her other statements.  I don't actually think she's lying, but possibly trying to smooth the landing of her hard message.  She may also not be aware that her praise is not on display to the extent she thinks it is.  Maybe it's mostly in the comments.  It's a high standard, but I also think this issue, while incredibly important, is not as important as preventing a GOP controlled house, senate and white house which I believe is likely IF Romney wins. His only way to win is GOP voter turnout and DEM voter suppression which will mean strong down ballot impact.

            "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

            by Back In Blue on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:35:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Praise (7+ / 0-)

              For the Obama White House: http://www.dailykos.com/...

              For the Obama Justice Department:
              http://www.dailykos.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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:16:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  2 out of 523? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund

                I didn't doubt that you had praise, but unless you can up the number to something significantly more that .004% of your diaries here, your statement that you praise generously and eagerly rings hollow.  Maybe you meant on the rare occasions that you offer praise you do it with gusto.  But based on the somewhat sarcastic title of the Justice Dept diary, your praise doesn't meet the description either.

                I support your work.  My only point is, why go there?  You don't have to apologize for your opinions so don't say something that can turn into an a credibility issue for you, so much that you feel you have to spend time defending yourself.  Stand your ground and time your message to when it will find the least resistance (like not during the convention).  There's plenty of time to bring this up next week and in a way that will change minds. The approach you've taken hasn't really worked has it?

                "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

                by Back In Blue on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:14:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  What disingenousness (4+ / 0-)

          What dis-ingenuousness are you talking about?

          Also what give-and-take? You haven't really given anything other than accusing her of being disingenuous?

          •  It is disingenuous to pretend you are a (5+ / 0-)

            supporter of the President meanwhile portraying the President as an extremist who is the cause of your daily torment.

            Scores of diaries tirelessly attacking the President as the destroyer of American freedom, and yet she honestly expect others to believe she backs his reelection?  

            I would be much more respectful of a stance which says I do not want this President to be reelected because I believe him to be the destroyer of American freedoms, as the tea critters have done, rather than one which attacks him relentlessly, only to fall back and pretend to back his candidacy. It is not logical.

            •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilJD, slinkerwink, aliasalias
              Scores of diaries tirelessly attacking the President as the destroyer of American freedom, and yet she honestly expect others to believe she backs his reelection?  
              I am pretty sure she does. We all have to - do we have any other choice?

              I doubt if any progressive is going to vote for Romney.
              But that doesn't mean we have to pretend Obama is anything like the president he promised to be and we wanted him to be.

              •  Haven't you already made your choice? I mean, if (0+ / 0-)

                you amass a campaign through scores of diaries proclaiming Obama as antithetical to everything you are as a political activist, haven't you already made the decision that Obama is unacceptable to you and your view of the world and therefore not worthy to be reelected?

                You certainly are not going to recruit supporters of the President by suggesting that he is anti-human rights.... I wouldn't want to vote for the President after reading your diaries.

                There are lots of people who disagree with President Obama, and still support his candidacy, this is perfectly fine, what some might object to is the  constant battle day-in-and-day-out to portray him as an extremist and, therefore, unacceptable.

        •  disingenuousness? (5+ / 0-)

          that's low. So rather then talk about what this administration is touting as being tough on national security, you attack the motivations of Jesselyn Radack and anyone  who dares to look at and speak up about what's going on? Ask yourself this why is this election so close?

          Democratic voters are not teh stupid, that's the other side. In 08 the Obama campaign was touting change, transparency and the rule of law not codifying/legalizing of the Bushies abuses and then some. This administration is interpreting old law old to turn us into a security state.

          The party platform is a slap in the face to me as a Democrat and having the campaign bang this drum is just plain old double speak. Where the fuck is my habeas corpus that the platform says they are protecting? hummmm?

          Personally I find the Biden one liner, Osama Bin Laudin is dead GM is still alive, riff really offensive. This is not what Democracy looks like and I may have to vote for this lot of Third Way neocons who could give a rats ass about the rule of law and civil/human rights or even our 'national interests' but please do not insult people by attacking their motivation.

          It's fucking insult to injury. The other day someone said I was spouting RW talking points when spoke out about the lack of difference between the two parties regarding 'national security' and the DoJ's dismal 4 year record.

          You want to do the two legs better dance fine but as I said the low information chest thumping stupid voters are on the other side. Tell me again how night is day or how anyone who cares about the truth and the rule of law or even democratic representation is disingenuous.

          BeJeezuz, this crap is exactly why this election is so close. Don't push this anti-democratic twisty lawlessness down peoples  throats. What's your motivation winning? Lot's of people who vote care about what they are voting for and what they will get when they 'win regardless of how bleak their choice is. This is not what Democracy looks like.          

      •  Exactly. I hope you're right. From the depths of (11+ / 0-)

        my sould, I hope people will wake up before our democracy--the core of which is free and open debate--is lost.

        Last night was a great start.  But promises need to be kept--and fulfilled.

        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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:10:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The laws on the books are passed (8+ / 0-)

    by Congress. The President signs them on the basis of whether or not they are enforceable.  Obviously, laws that address the behavior of agents of government, all of whose actions are available to inspect is easy. So, whistle blowers are easy picking.

    That said, if the laws passed by Congress are un-Constitutional in that they deprive people of human rights (which was entirely Constitutional when the Constitution was first adopted), then there are only two ways to change that: get a Congress that will rescind the laws or prosecute a trial through to the Supreme Court which can determine the law is un-Constitutional and is properly not enforced.  Expecting the executive to make that decision unilaterally is unwise, if only because another executive can do the opposite.

    Why does the Congress countenance corruption in the agencies?  Because any number of Congress critters rely on the agencies to dole out benefits to their favorite supporters in order to garner the votes that will keep them in office. The dollars that armament manufacturers shell out are just a token to show they're on board and that their employees will be well schooled to the facts that if "so and so" doesn't stay in Washington, there won't be any jobs. The base-closure agenda pulled the same trick.  "If you don't vote for the guy in Connecticut, the repair facilities will be relocated to Virginia or New Hampshire or Georgia or Florida."
    It's the same extortion racket that's been played with our industrial base.  "If you don't vote for so-and-so then the plants will be shipped to China."  Well, as we speak, one of those plants is being shipped from Wisconsin to China and Ryan doesn't want to hear about it.
    Your clients are just a small part of a much bigger story and the problem sits on Capitol Hill.  The offensive legislation, which seeks to subordinate the American people, rather than serve their interests, was passed by Republicans and Democrats.  Who actually signs the death warrant is not important, as long as killing people is legal.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:51:20 AM PDT

    •  Agree that Congress is corrupt. (11+ / 0-)

      But the unitary Executive branch, which Bush put in place and Obama further expanded, is throwing off checks and balances.

      Congress passes a law, but then both Bush and Obama did secret "signing statements" that they could interpret the law differently.

      And as for trying the case in court, on the most serious issues, both Presidents Bush and Obama have shiut down the lawsuits by asserting the heretofor rarely-used "state secrets privilege."

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:15:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is the true power of signing statements? (5+ / 0-)

        There doesn't seem to be any legal strength in them and they have yet to be challenged as far as I know (I am not a lawyer so...).

        Also, for all the supposed power of the Unitary Executive, congress seems to have been able to derail and deny Obama at almost every turn since 2010 and the GOP takeover of the house.  Would it not be simple for congress to do something to stop Obama if they actually wanted to?  That doesn't excuse Obama.  I just don't see any real power in the Unitary Executive theory.  It seems like nothing more than posture.

        I'm very concerned about this issue, but not as much as preventing a GOP flush IF Romney wins.

        "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

        by Back In Blue on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:43:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Whistleblower persecution is tough on (10+ / 0-)

    national security. Everytime honest civil servants trying to expose corruption and criminality are intimidated or disabled, the real security of the nation from enemies foreign and domestic is substantially weakened.

  •  JUST GO AWAY. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes, grapes, blueyedace2

    Go vote Republican if you think they will do a better job.

    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy ( inaugural address, January 20, 1961)

    by Outraged Mom on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:04:27 AM PDT

  •  Who are the other two people (0+ / 0-)

    charged for whistleblowing under the Espionage Act before Obama, besides Dan Ellsberg? Which is very telling in itself...

  •  an ardent, accurate, activist advocate is wel/come (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, slinkerwink, aliasalias

    You can hold an opinion, or a grudge, or a stock, or a picket sign. But the time really to be at your best Is when you hold the hand of a trusting child.

    by renzo capetti on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:40:46 AM PDT

  •  Spinning Facts (21+ / 0-)

    As one of six Americans criminally charged by the Obama Administration to date under the Espionage Act as a whistleblower, I find it the height of hypocrisy and hubris for this President's 2012 re-election campaign to tout this record as a praiseworthy accomplishment from the past 4 years.

    For a President who came into office promising unprecedented openness and transparency (as well as eloquently defending the critical role of whistleblowers), he has become clearly quite enamored with secrecy and off the books executive power, buying into and further expanding the national security regime hook, line and sinker.

    His Administration has also gone out their way to protect the Bush Administration's record on torture, secret surveillance and rendition through state secrets, executive privilege, sovereign immunity and unilateral enabling acts that are counter to our Constitution, due process and oversight.

    I faced 35 years in prison for literally telling the truth as a whistleblower on massive multi-billion government fraud, waste, abuse, wrongdoing and illegality (including the secret surveillance programs) and the fact that the government rendered asunder the best of American ingenuity and innovation for providing superior intelligence to this Nation, while doing so in complete accordance with the 4th Amendment.

    I am the only person criminally prosecuted to date for the massive national security investigation that was launched by the DoJ to locate the sources for the December 2005 NYT article revealing the existence of a secret warrantless wiretapping and surveillance program, and I wasn't even a source!

    However, my telling the truth and exposing government corruption and wrongdoing became a criminal act in the eyes of the government, and I was turned into an enemy of the state for supporting and defending the Constitution.

    President was made personally aware of my prosecution and clearly aligned with the shutting down and silencing of inconvenient truths about his own and previous Administration - so much for looking forward and not back.

    People also need to realize that the unprecedented war on whistleblowers and truth tellers promulgated by those in power is a direct assault on the 1st Amendment and has put reporters and journalists and the media in the cross hairs of government surveillance and monitoring.

    Never did I imagine that the grand vision of hope and change so eloquently articulated by Obama during the 2008 election campaign would turn into dark side prosecutions to preserve and expand the national security state regime.

    And we are a lesser Nation for it.

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

    by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:46:41 AM PDT

  •  prepared for enthusiasm until 'slapped in face' (10+ / 0-)

    By something that came out 3 weeks ago? That's when POTUS released his defense that suddenly got you all worked up.

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:48:27 AM PDT

    •  JR would stil take criticism, but it would be less (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, blueyedace2, Deep Texan

      if she would leave out editorialization like that paragraph.

      •  It felt like a slap in the face. (3+ / 0-)

        I thought the best strategy for Obama would just to lay-low about the war on whistleblowers.  But I found it galling that he took this shameful strategy, distorted it, and added it as a list of "good" things he's done.

        He has done plenty of good things.  He doesn't need to mislead about the bad things, especially in a "FACT Check," whose very purpose is to correct distortions by the other side.

        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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:11:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I get your point, GGGE (0+ / 0-)

        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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:12:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your argument: I should known abt this 3 wks ago. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias

      Strong.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:13:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Slapped in the face (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ffour, allenjo, aliasalias, 2020adam

      Going after so-called leakers, whistleblowers and truthtellers is a decidedly bi-partisan issue these days.

      Speaking truth to power invites ridicule, shooting the messenger, ad hominem attacks and personal projection.

      Very little daylight between Dems and Repub on this one.

      I became exhibit number one for the Obama Administration in getting tough on national security 'leakers' and my federal statute protected and 1st Amendment rights were criminalized as a whistleblower.

      There is clear bi-partisan normalization and institutionalization of the national security state, massive military-industrial-coongressional-intelligence complex works programs and tacit agreement and support for all of our various foreign policy adventures (many still obscured by secrecy and off the books wink-wink nod-nod agreement).

      We are saddled by massive debt and many Americans who still cannot find work, have given up finding work or must accept work in the service sector that is barely above the poverty line.

      And I am not better off than I was 4 years ago, nor is my family or many of my friends and colleagues from across the entire political spectrum.

      "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

      by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:00:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I appreciate your work Jessalyn (9+ / 0-)

    but now is not the time to be undercutting Obama from the left.  Now is the time to keep quiet if you haven't got anything election-winning to say.

    Sorry, but that's the view from the pragmatic wing of the party.  The whistleblower stuff is important, but not as important as getting Obama back into the White House first.  Surely you must see this.  Surely you must see that everything you're concerned about would only get WORSE under a Republican administration.

    As for putting "LIE" in your headline -- again, stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  It is the Republicans who are liars, and ONLY Republicans, between now and November 7.

    Please renew your campaign for whistleblowers once we have reelected a Democratic president.  In the meantime, diaries like this just look like more attempts to Carter him, if you ask me, and I don't like that one bit.

    •  Now is exactly the time (10+ / 0-)

      to hold Obama accountable for these repugnant anti-democratic policies. When it counts. This is the only moment the left has to speak truth to his civil liberty abuses at all. History has already shown that in a few months Obama will dispense with benign platitudes and continue clamping down on critics who underline the embarrassing number of off-message policies this administration enthusiastically supports: unlawful/indefinite detention, arbitrary execution, immunizing torturers, and expansion of the warrantless surveillance state, let alone other matters more typically in the spotlight.

      Obama's track record shows he will ignore the left either way, but I believe having to address those issues won't hurt his campaign. And if such questions do actual damage, there's a reason for it: they're important. When do you suggest Americans be allowed to hear such information? Only when there's no chance of it mattering? How much vaunted freedom are we allowed to actually have?

      •  more power to everyone for speaking their minds (0+ / 0-)

        JR got hosed by our govt and is defending people getting hosed by the current admin for political purposes, and their trumpeting it when they don't need to.  i'm pro JR, pro O, pro GG.  

        plus: this is an internal fight. the right doesn't give a crap about civil liberty.  most of the civil liberty D camp will work for Obama, so D flag wavers would be smarter to go back to other diaries.

        punch harder.

        paul ryan created the deficit

        by rasfrome on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:52:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Now think of it from the other POV (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna

        You are nearing election day. A constituency which has loong been critical of you an announces that now, when their votes are needed, they will not vote for you. Then they announce they expect you to support them after election day.

        If you lose on election day, you will not be doing anything for that constituency.

        If you win, it will not be because that constituency did anything to get you there. Will you be inclined to support them, or to support the people who stood behind you?

        This notion of we will get President Obama's support by refusing to sweat for him is preposterous. Welcome to teh way the world does not work. Foot, meet bullet.

    •  My pointing out truth only helps the enemy? (5+ / 0-)

      The government argued the same thing in the Thomas Drake case.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:51:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The truth can wait? (6+ / 0-)

      Do you know how many times in history that has been disastrous?

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:04:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Outing the Truth (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, aliasalias, 2020adam

      What makes Democrats immune from lying??

      Lying aids and comforts the subversion of the Nation from within.

      Believe me, I am not voting for Romney in the Fall with the neo-cons licking their chops to restore their glory.

      But I am also not blind to the neo-liberals as well, or the fact that many neo-cons remain in government.

      Their agendas are not all that far apart when it comes to national security, corporate state statism, and economic policies.

      It is why so many are voicing their concerns, and especially when voicing these concerns about the incumbent Administration is met with STFU between now and the elections.

      When do we become afraid of the truth?

      Keep truth off the table until AFTER the elections?

      Just STFU on anything controversial?

      Including the time honored and legitimate dissent coming from the protestors outside of the DNC?

      Seems like rather uncourageous behavior to me.

      What happened to truth seeking and telling before the elections?

      By most accounts, the government did everything it could to declare open season on truth tellers and whistleblowers during the incumbency of the current Administration.

      And yet outing the truth is considered a prohibited activity between now and the election?

      Doing so disables the heart of the American experience and panders to the worst of our political instincts.

      And what is the assurance that an incumbent President with no election left to win, will suddenly get the light and make amends for all the untruths that HAVE happened under this Administration?

      "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

      by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:19:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now is the time to keep quiet? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, aliasalias
      but now is not the time to be undercutting Obama from the left.  Now is the time to keep quiet if you haven't got anything election-winning to say.
      Romney would be worse.

      Is that election winning enough for all?

      Perhaps not, when the issue is, Obama can do so much better.

      Just think about what Obama might be able to do between now and election to GOTV.

      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

      by allenjo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is big enough (6+ / 0-)

    so I think Obama is big enough to win re-election but also to receive criticism where it is valid.
    In a lot of ways Obama has done amazing things.
    But in this aspect, perhaps he has failed and we should not hesitate to criticize it.

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:14:44 AM PDT

    •  Nobody is perfect ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Quicklund

      ... and Obama is no exception.  I don't think anyone here would disagree with your sentiments.

      But there are times, places and ways in which to express criticism, and this is none of them.

      "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

      by JBL55 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:35:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is this the 72nd or ... (6+ / 0-)

    ... 73rd time you've published the same diary?

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:19:39 AM PDT

    •  Please cite other times I've published this diary. (6+ / 0-)

      Not a single commenter has argued that my diary is WRONG.

      People would just prefer that I sit on the truth until after the election.

      I wish someone would have told the truth before we were lied into the Iraq war.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:56:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have not researched this issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna

        Nor have, I imagine, most DKos users. Researching where you are right and where you are wrong on the various facts takes time.

        What you are complaining about, is that some DKos users decline to accept everything you say at your word alone.

      •  You put a new introduction on ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        ... the same diary every time.  

        As for being wrong, why of course you're wrong. If you were told that someone had secreted classified information out of the NSA, how would you charge them as the government attorney, keeping in mind your oath to zealously advocate for your client? Remember, your client is the People of the United States, and your client's representative is telling you that this information would cost American lives in the wrong hands.

        When someone is caught stealing Top Secret information from the NSA building, they should be charged under the Espionage Act. If it turns out later as you claim in the case of Thomas Drake, that the information was classified by some middle-manager only after it was returned, then that's a defense to the charged crime.

        If you take information that might be classified as Top Secret from the NSA building, aren't you asking to be charged with a violation of the Espionage Act? Don't you go to your bosses all the way up the chain of command to make sure you can take the stuff home? Aren't there guards and signs at the exits to remind you that work product should be left at your desk and not brought home?  

        If you take classified or potentially classified documents out of the NSA as a whistleblower and don't go directly to the nearest USAG or an attorney, then you should be charged with treason. It may sound harsh, but in certain occupations in life, you don't get an "oops" defense. Brain surgeons don't get an "oops" defense, neither do electricians or helicopter pilots.

        As for Mr. Drake, you were very skimpy on the details in your advertisement. Wasn't he employed during the Bush Administration? Wasn't he initially investigated by the Bush Administration DOJ? Wasn't he initially charged under the Bush Administration? Didn't the case go through the docket mostly through the Bush Administration? When the case finally came under the JX of the Obama Administration, didn't Mr. Drake eventually get off with a misdemeanor plea?  

        Sounds to me like your beef is with the Bush Administration. Moreover, I'd be curious to know, since I guess we'll be arguing this ad infinitum, whether the same career DOJ prosecutors handled the case during both administrations. Thank you.  

        I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

        by Tortmaster on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:27:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not the designated 15 minute window. (6+ / 0-)

    Where we can complain.

    And not in the Free Speech area where we get to complain.

    And not OK to suggest that Obama doesn't have a halo.

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:19:44 AM PDT

  •  I won't be buying your book. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    No one knows what it's like, To be the bad man, To be the sad man, behind blue eyes....

    by blueyedace2 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:51:03 AM PDT

  •  Say what you have to say, I guess. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, Quicklund

    But man, I'd be more in the mood to read it if you could hold your damn fire until after election day.

    I got it.  You have a bone to pick with Obama.  (It's the same bone you've been picking since 2008.)

    Can you please, for the love of god, pause in your picking of it until after election day?

    President Romney thanks you for your support.

    •  Don't tell the truth or it could jeopardize Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, aliasalias

      being elected.

      Look, he could have just swept this issue under the rug--likes drones, kill lists, etc.

      He was the one who put it into play by writing a distored and deceitful platform "FACT Check" about it.

      And I represent honest men, who like me voted for Obama, who've been thrown under the bus for the sake of trying to bolster Obama's national security creds.  Once was more than enough.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:17:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  good luck (0+ / 0-)

    trying to get anybody to care.

    Didn't you know that it's our tribe vs. their tribe, right or wrong?

  •  thank you for the post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allenjo, aliasalias

    there are some out here who are less than enthused with many actions of this President

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:05:35 AM PDT

    •  Should anything less than enthusiasm be (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allenjo, slinkerwink, aliasalias

      self-censored.  Because that's what a lot of people here are asking--which is frightening.

      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 Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:18:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this new automaton wave of DKOS (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo, ffour, aliasalias

        is disconcerting. The party and this site are not as shiny as they were to me once upon a time. I used to think this was a site for people who were looking to storm the gates, and now it is a site that wants to reinforce the gates to make sure none of the left leaning liberals get in.

        Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

        by greenbastard on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:23:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Power Binds and Blinds Loyalty (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          allenjo, aliasalias

          Doesn't matter who is in the big seat.

          What is troubling is the call here by several for self-censorship and looking the other way.

          That winning is everything.

          Look - this election is not a sporting contest.

          Democracy is not a spectator sport.

          No one ever said that America was easy.

          Questioning authority is part and parcel of democracy - after all those that ascend to power are accountable to the people with their power.

          I personally went out onto the playing field and called foul.

          The owners of the "game" threw me out and then came after me for simply asking that the government play by the rules, not violate the law in secret and not use their power for self-serving interests leveraging the bank account of the government with taxpayer monies for billions in redistribution destined for the hands of the 1% tied into the corporate state interests of the military-industrial-intelligence complex.

          That simple.

          Was told that what I did endangered the lives of American soldiers.

          And yet I was an American soldier.

          When speaking the truth is a dangerous act, we will have suffered the loss of democracy and that is NOT a good thing.

          Rewatch Obama's electrifying speech in 2004 and tell me if there were red and blue states in his speech.

          Not any more.

          We are back to extreme partisanship and political tribal warfare played out on carefully scripted stages meant to create impressions and perceptions.

          No wonder people become cynical.

          And I voted for Obama 2008.

          But if I didn't care I would not post here.

          "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

          by Thomas Drake on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:52:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm one of those that are grateful that you do (0+ / 0-)

            post here, you are certainly an excellent addition (Imho), and that goes for Jesselyn Radack as well. In fact I often link her diaries to my Facebook 'wall' and they tend to get 'shared' a lot. So this site isn't always the end of the line for these diaries.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:13:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not frightening: uncritically accepting JK's POV (0+ / 0-)

        For a lawyer you sure raise a lot of strawman arguments oh wait ... that is what lawyers do.

  •  I don't like the D Platform (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ffour, slinkerwink, Rizzo, aliasalias, 2020adam

    at all regarding national security. when you compare it to 08's platform it and what it says this administration has done it's just double speak to me.  I'm still a Democrat but I do not see how this is democratic or Democratic.

    "I'm taking back my country and the vehicle I'm using is the Democratic Party' Howard Dean

    I no longer believe that this lot of Democrat's who are running our national party and in power are a vehicle to anything other then a more aesthetic face of the one party anti-democratic corporatist/ war state.

    This is cart before the horse politics and instead of voting for something I feel my vote is being extorted by fear of the RW crazies who instead of fighting this administration has normalized and declared their complicity a 'victory for compromise'.

    The truth is now a RW talking point and yet I'm told here that I must STFU and praise what I have spent my whole life fighting against politically. Liberals are no longer welcome in the new Democratic party. They don't know how to think or speak double.

    Democrat's were the big tent party but there seems to no longer be room in for people who aren't willing to leave their brains and love of democracy and our laws at the door.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site