Waterboarding Whistleblower Indicted Under Espionage Act

wiredmikey writes "A former CIA officer was indicted on Thursday for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists. The restricted disclosure included the name of a covert officer and information related to the role a CIA employee played in classified operations. The indictment charges John Kiriakou with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for allegedly illegally disclosing the identity of a covert officer and with three counts of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly illegally disclosing national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it. The count charging violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as well as each count of violating the Espionage Act, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, and making false statements carries a maximum prison term of five years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000."

Comments

Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[crazyjj]

Until you men realize that the U.S. does not, and cannot, commit any war crimes--then you will be suitably punished. For those of you patriots who accept that all U.S. action is lawful, by virtue of it being U.S. action, then prosperity and salvation await. For all others, who would engage with the socialist press and outside agitators in conspiring to disparage this flawless nation, only purgatory and a jail cell await you.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[cpu6502]

>>>I didn't know Romney had a /. account

Which one is Romney? The current sitting president or the candidate for president? They all look alike to me.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

This whole "Torture doesn't work" bit is silly. Of course torture works, IF you are asking the right questions. I have personally seen it work hundreds of times. Every time a kid holds down his little brother and gives him a pink belly until he is told where his GI Joe is hidden, torture has worked. People have this fantasy that information cannot be verified, and that all questions have are a four item multiple choice question where the person being tortured will eventually give all answers.

If you are tortured for the password to a file on your computer, the only way to stop the torture is to give the correct password. Each time you lie, the torturer can try the password, and if it fails, continue to torture you. This would produce effective and reliable results. Conversely, if you were tortured into naming people you know who support your rival faction, your torture will fail. Successfully getting good information out of torture is in asking questions where lying doesn't produce the same results as telling the truth.

Banning torture is a question of ethics. Not effectiveness. "It doesn't work is verifiable false"

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[willaien]

Still worthy of ridicule, due to the context of the statement. That you can, in just the right places, see Russia from Alaska does not equate to Foreign Policy experience.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[andydread]

Actually if you care to be factually correct you could mention that Palin was being ridiculed because her answer to the question of her being qualified to be the Vice President and possibly President was...as you say "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia."

That was, as you know, a ridiculous answer to simple yet serious question. It's an insinuation that if one is within proximity to a foreign country whether its Mexico, Russia, or Canada then they must be qualified for those offices. You give a ridiculous answer to a serious question then the answer is ridiculous and therefor you are ridiculed and made a mockery of.

As far as the "I can see Russia from my house." quote goes that came from a comedy show. (Saturday Night Live)

I do agree that if you repeat a lie long enough and spread from cable news to talk radio then the faithful will believe it as fact as demonstrated by the fact that half of Republican voters believe that the current President is a Muslim. The Right seems to very skilled in this area.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

That's great, in the case where you know that the guy you are torturing knows the information. Unfortunately, that's never -- or at least close enough to "never" to be essentially the same thing.

One problem occurs when you grabbed an innocent bystander. You can torture him until the sun explodes in a giant supernova explosion (yes, I know...our sun isn't supposed to go supernova, but you understand what I'm saying anyway, don't you?), but you aren't going to get the information you want because he doesn't have it. And he can tell you that. Every. Single. Time. but you will have no way of knowing it's the truth, based on torture alone.

To illustrate a second problem, let's expand upon your password example. In my organization, when an employee leaves the company, their account password -- and any shared account passwords -- are changed, so that they no longer have access to the systems. In a military or paramilitary organization, I would expect that similar policies would be in place, expanded to include those who are MIA. So you capture an enemy combatant and start torturing him to provide The Password. He gives it to you. You test it. It fails, and so you continue to torture him because you asked a good question, tested the result, and it failed, so obviously, he's lying. In fact, however, he isn't lying. He gave you the right information, but the information has changed since his capture.

Your entire conclusion is wrong. Torture might work, in some cases, some of the time, if you are lucky. But you don't know -- and in fact, you CAN'T know -- when the intel you have received through torture is correct but has changed, when the intel you have received through torture is false and simply turning up the pressure will give you the answers you want or when the guy is just an innocent bystander who doesn't know squat. To you, they all look the same. So, yeah, you can prove a positive, but you can't prove a negative no matter how brutal you become. Consequently, torture is BOTH a question of ethics and effectiveness. IMHO, it is unethical and ineffective.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

"None of us can be free while others are oppressed."

Intentionally inflicting physical harm on someone else in anything other than self-defense is oppression, and is evil. Period. You might try to argue that torturing an enemy combatant in a time of war is "self-defense" but I'd argue that you are stretching that definition to -- if not beyond -- the breaking point.

If you can rationalize brutality to someone because they aren't "one of you" perhaps you are not human.

If your goal is so precious that you are willing to discard ethical considerations to obtain it, perhaps your goal isn't nearly as noble as you believe.

Killing or injuring someone who is doing their level best to do the same to you is distasteful, but sometimes necessary. Doing so to someone who is bound, restrained and no longer in a position to pose a threat to you is, indeed, far worse. You can attempt to rationalize, but I, for one, have no desire to accept the ethical quagmire to which you apparently subscribe

this is how fascism works

[Dan667]

make what is illegal legal and legally prosecute anyone that exposes it.

Re:Hope and change

[Nadaka]

Someone is a war criminal.

Bush? maybe. Cheney? definitely.

But yes, Obama isn't much better.

I don't have anyone I can vote for any more.

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Reform. All are putrid vulgar fools. There isn't a single party that offers rational solutions to any of the problems we face and respects the principals that were supposed to make America a shining beacon of liberty. No matter what happens, this country is doomed.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see that speech, but I always kindof assumed this was the case.

We saw harsh 180's on a lot of things Obama promised repeatedly, in very clear language. Domestic spying was going to stop. Guantanamo was going to stop operating the way it does. The list goes on.

Then he got in office, pulled an about-face on all of it, and signed an EO allowing snatch & grab detention of US citizens without a warrant or trial, if someone, somewhere, thinks that citizen might be somehow connected with terrorism-like activities.

He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.

Re:Hope and change

[rrohbeck]

Come on, most people agree that Obama is a much better Republican President than GWB.
Actually the best since Clinton.

State Facist Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiriakou would have been wise to report the torture to his superiors and document it. Then, perhaps, he would have been protected by the Whistleblower laws of the U.S. Perhaps he did. I don't know. IANAL

This idictment appears to be "persecution", rather "prosecution" by a State entity that is turning facist. This is what would be expected by various oligarchys across the world. President Obama should use his power of pardon to clear Kiriakou and reward his actions as a true patriot. Maybe we should start a petition at https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions as a first step.