On Sunday, the New York Times had a front-page article on leaks, which featured my client, Bill Binney.The article focused on how "leak" inquiries (that's in scare quotes because that's the government's intent--fear mongering; there's no law against "leaking"; and "leaks" have served as a pretext to target whistleblowers and journalists.)
The article focused on the government digging into journalists' phone records, e-mail logs, and electronic archives as part of wide-ranging, aggressive, and unprecedented leak investigations. It's an excellent article, but does not mention the word "whistleblower," a critical element of these leak investigations. While the journalists and I differ on whether all the defenants in the six leak prosecutions are whistleblowers, with Binney (named in an indictment that was never filed), this fact is irrefutable.
While the article notes how the result of these leak investigations has been an
unprecedented six prosecutions,
it fails to note that 1) these have all been of whistleblowers 2) who disclosed information that embarrassed the government or exposed its illegalities.
The article notes that
Obama and top administration officials say some leaks put Americans at risk, disrupted intelligence operations, and strained alliances,
but fails to note that in the Administration's centerpiece leak prosecution--that of NSA secret surveillance whistleblower Tom Drake (the first of the six Espionage Act prosecutions)--such allegations proved to be patently false.
The article explains that when an agency thinks there's been a leak,
officials file what is called a "Crimes Report" with the Department of Justice . . . including the effect of the disclosure "on the national defense."
It does not mention that this aspect (harm to the United States) is a prong of the Espionage Act, the overbroad, ambiguous, and extreme law that has been charged in the six cases.
It tells the story of my client, Bill Binney, to illustrate what can happen to the targets of these leak investigations. The article explains that Binney became the target of a leak investigation into the sources for the Times Pulitzer Prize-winning article on warrantless wiretapping. (There's no questioning of why the government didn't do an investigation into the warrantless wiretapping itself and the lawbreaking agency and telecoms who perpetrated it.)
While the story mentions the $7000 Binney incurred with his first attorney, it does not mention the $100,000 in legal work provided pro bono once my organization, the Government Accountability Project, took over his representation (nor does it mention my non-profit at all).
The article notes that Binney was cleared of any wrongdoing, but does not mention that this was after 4 years of hard-core investigation. Nor does it mention that the criminal targeting of Binney and 4 of his co-complainants (including Tom Drake) followed the facts that 1) they blew the whistle on NSA's warrantless wiretapping and contractor abuse to the Department of Defense Inspector General in 2002 and 2) their claims were substantiated in 2005, before the leak investigation was launched.
This last paragraph is the scariest part of Binney's ordeal: the government retaliated against a whistleblower not just with the usual security clearance revocation and forced resignation, but by criminally targeting (and in Drake's case, prosecuting) him.