Slashdot Mirror


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."

13 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by toetagger · · Score: 5, Funny

      I didn't know Romney had a /. account

    2. Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Double-whoosh. The second poster caught the original poster's drift, and merely expanded upon it. Apparently you missed that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I realise that's sarcasm, but there are a whole lot of people who actually do think like that. Did the guy commit a crime? Yes, but committing that crime was a patriotic thing to do, and damned brave if you aske me. The guy should get a CMH for his bravery, or at least a silver star (I know a guy who got two silver stars and doesn't believe that he should have; "I didn't do anything anybody else woudn't have," he said.)

      The guy in TFS is a patriot and hero. The people pressing charges should be in front of a firing squad for treason -- because waterboarding IS unamerican, as is lying about it.

      We're supposed to be the good guys. Can't we even try to be?

    4. Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The mockery was not directed at Palin for being able to see Russia or not being able to see Russia, it was directed at Palin for claiming that being able to see the tip of Russia, about as far away from Moscow as New York is from Paris, had anything to do with her competence with regard to foreign policy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  2. Where's the whistleblower immunity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Exposing crimes against humanity and they charge him with treason?
    I for one applaud his decision, it was and will forever be, the correct choice.
    I also hope that we as Americans will stand up for him and against his persecutors.

  3. this is how fascism works by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Hope and change by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Hope and change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Hope and change by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are lots of differences between the parties—just no significant ones. All of the differences are with respect to issues that neither party can significantly affect without getting smacked down by the courts—abortion, for example—or differences that in theory make a difference but in practice do not—techniques for redistribution of wealth, for example. (Tax and spend versus borrow and spend both have the same net effect, but one causes inflation that reduces your paycheck's buying power, while the other causes your paycheck to look smaller numerically, thus reducing buying power without inflation.)

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  7. Re:What can I do? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Become an active member of Amnesty International. They do some awesome work and have saved hundreds of people from torture or "disappearing." Their reports are impartial and so well-researched that they serve as a standard that even governments cannot ignore them.