Slashdot Mirror
How the Pentagon Punished NSA Whistleblowers (theguardian.com)
10 years before Edward Snowden's leak, an earlier whistle-blower on NSA spying "was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged with crimes that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially and professionally," according to a new article in The Guardian. "The only job he could find afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban Washington, where he remains today... The supreme irony? In their zeal to punish Drake, these Pentagon officials unwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches when the 29-year-old NSA contract employee blew the whistle himself."
But today The Guardian reveals a new story about John Crane, a senior official at the Department of Defense "who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake -- until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well..." Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute whistleblower Thomas Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake's identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge...
Crane's failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations... if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)
Meanwhile, George Maschke writes: In a presentation to a group of Texas law students, a polygraph examiner for the U.S. Department of Defense revealed that in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations, the number of polygraphs conducted annually by the department tripled (to over 120,000). Morris also conceded that mental countermeasures to the polygraph are a "tough thing."
But today The Guardian reveals a new story about John Crane, a senior official at the Department of Defense "who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake -- until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well..." Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute whistleblower Thomas Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake's identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge...
Crane's failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations... if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)
Meanwhile, George Maschke writes: In a presentation to a group of Texas law students, a polygraph examiner for the U.S. Department of Defense revealed that in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations, the number of polygraphs conducted annually by the department tripled (to over 120,000). Morris also conceded that mental countermeasures to the polygraph are a "tough thing."
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
If the assistant inspector general supervising the whistleblower unit can't figure out how to safely be a whistleblower without getting hammered, then who can? Ironically, the image of a whistleblower is that the whistle immediately alerts everyone to an issue. How's that worked out for folks?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
When TPTB strikes, they make sure they cover everything
Not only they throw the book on the whistleblowers, they also make sure that those patriotic whistleblowers get their reputation totally ruined by releasing their 'wu mao' teams astroturfing their propaganda at online forum, such as this one on /. calling the whistleblowers 'traitors' and such
What TPTB of the United States of America is doing is getting closer and closer to that of the Chinese Communist regime
I came from China, I know how terrible fascism is, and unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happens here, more and more
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is what a lot of people don't get. Snowden had only two real choices: Go outside the system to reveal injustice, or keep his mouth shut.
The whole whistle-blower problem was brought to our attention decades ago. The powers that be promised "whistle blower protection". Some people accepted that... and still got screwed.
Snowden had to have know the history of all that. He knew he had two choices. Be a mobster, or turn "states evidence" to the only state that won't screw him: The public at large.
...but I have few hopes it will. It would be nice if those who utter all that stuff about:
* "real heroes don't run away to hide behind foreign powers"
* "he's a coward for not standing on his rights and facing justice"
* "he should have worked through the system and not broken the law, he's a criminal" ...would now shut up and even apologize. When the entity you are blowing the whistle on, itself breaks the law - fraudulently and unlawfully uses the colour of authority to protect itself from embarrassment rather than serving the public trust - then you can no longer depend on the justice system. They have more access to its levers than the whistleblower, so the justice system is not neutral, not blind, in his case.
They are captured, in effect, by the prestige of the institution, and the numbers. What is the court supposed to believe about a complex internal matter, the one whistleblower, or the Secretary, three Undersecretaries, four generals and five lawyers, all insisting that you are a crazed, grudge-bearing criminal?
Nothing prevents a large bureaucracy from abusing the simple fact that courts trust them, except the bureaucracy's own members' obedience to the law and fear of eventual exposure. That works, mostly, for the local Roads department, or even the State environmental department. With the NSA, it will never, ever happen; the NSA brass need fear no exposure, ever. Clapper's brazen perjury before Congress (without consequences) is proof that Snowden had to run.
in polite society its considered uncouth to execute your whistleblowers. Social execution, career execution, certainly. In this term the government already had what it wants from snowden and that is unconditional exile. Sure, having a warm body gives ample opportunity to crucify the enemy of your specific terms of freedom but if you already control major media outlets, so it doesnt matter what your enemy says. the NYT, CBS, NBC, you name it, they will all toe the line and kindly omit certain details if you ask them to avoid being 'unpatriotic' in your reporting.
Morris also conceded that mental countermeasures to the polygraph are a "tough thing."
much like countermeasures to the easter bunny are a "tough thing." the polygraph loses its mystic power once you expose it as firmly debunked pseudoscience in the realm of phrenology and tea leaf reading. The purpose of the test is to act as a chilling effect, nothing more.
Good people go to bed earlier.
But see: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...
"I came from China, I know how terrible fascism is, and unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happens here, more and more"
The U.S. government has killed an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. Often contractor companies do the violence, or arrange more violence so that they can make more money and so the managers can get promotions. It's killing for profit.
Why the Vietnam war? The CIA and Vietnam. "... from June, 1954 to June, 1963, that is, until two years after Dulles left office (August, 1961) the CIA was absolutely and exclusively dominant in creating and carrying out the policies which led eventually to the Vietnam War."
"To the CIA too must go the credit for the creation of the secret police forces of Diemâ(TM)s brother Ngo Dinh Nhu which prevented dissent within Vietnam until it was too late to change things."
The intention of the U.S. financial community to profit from corrupt practices was well known long before the crash in 2008. In the Berkshire Hathaway 2002 Annual Report (PDF), Warren Buffett said this on page 14: "I can assure you that the marking errors in the derivatives business have not been symmetrical. Almost invariably, they have favored either the trader who was eyeing a multi-million dollar bonus or the CEO who wanted to report impressive 'earnings' (or both). The bonuses were paid, and the CEO profited from his options. Only much later did shareholders learn that the reported earnings were a sham."
The Iraq war made huge amounts of money for the Bush family and Dick Cheney: Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War. That destruction will continue for decades: The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End.
is obviously Lynne Halbrooks. She got a promotion for this...per TFA "had recently been named the principal deputy inspector general". She now works for the lobbying law firm of Holland & Knight. Seems like she's also involved in helping cover-up the leaked info about a SEAL team member involved in the making of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty". A true PARTIOT (ACT), all-around. Hopefully for her she's got her thirty pieces of silver stashed away outside of US jurisdiction.
" if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)"
And the official investigations will be quietly covered up.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Here's the problem:
A two-person election in November, Hillary will almost certainly win. Indeed, if history is anything to go by - it will be a massive landslide - every time Republicans have nominated an angry demagogue like Trump in the past the democrats got a landslide victory (see Barry Goldwater for example).
But if it's a three person election - then Trump may very well win, regardless who the third person is. Lets say Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. While he lost on maths, the man got a LOT of votes, and even in the states where lost his margins were narrow. One could easily see him taking several states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary, and just one or two states could make all the difference. I would prefer Bernie over Hillary but right now I hope he drops out after the convention - because if he runs then Trump wins.
Now what if say Kassich or Rubio runs ? You know, classic establishment republicans ? Well the landslide is definitely off the the table - since a lot of the independents who will gladly choose Hillary over Trump would not choose either over Kassich or Rubio. That would take votes from both of them - and the maths will get very complicated. It's unlikely this mainstream republican candidate could win but which of the other two does is suddenly a gamble, and Trump's odds look a lot better.
Okay, what if we one of the republican crazies ran ? Cruz or Paul maybe ? Well the trouble with those guys are - they always only appealed to the same brand of wingnuts that Trump drew... and he is better at it than they are. But a lot of independents will, yet again, choose their brand of crazy over Hillary - and that may be enough to give Trump a victory.
That's the problem right now - you got the republicans having gone full retard and nominated a man whose speeches are identical to those of fascist leaders and nazi's through the ages - but the democrats responded by nominating the woman with the worst unfavorables in years. Trump is probably the only candidate in history so terrible that Hillary could beat him (I don't think she could have won against either McCain or Romney... well maybe McCain if he had kept Palin). But that ability to beat him utterly depends on a two-candidate race. Any third candidate who splits the vote and the orangutang son of the NAZI gets the nuclear launch codes.
This pattern has been prevalent for a while. Quite a few candidates have lost because a third-party got just enough votes they would otherwise have gotten to cost them a win (Gore for example). But I think this is the most stark example ever.
So the question is, how badly do you NOT want a world where Goldwater won ? Can you imagine if that froth at the mouth lunatic had been president during the Bay of Pigs ? When the world was on the verge of a nuclear war, most of the credit for it not happening came down to a president who managed to keep his cool. JFK earned respect that day. Trump is the goldwater of our generation and make no mistake, there will be Bay of Pigs like events in the next 8 years, there always is... when they come, you need somebody making the calls who is known for acting calmly and keeping his cool and making careful, calculated decisions. You do not want an angry demagogue who never thinks before he speaks, let alone acts.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
But if it's a three person election - then Trump may very well win, regardless who the third person is. Lets say Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. While he lost on maths, the man got a LOT of votes, and even in the states where lost his margins were narrow. One could easily see him taking several states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary, and just one or two states could make all the difference. I would prefer Bernie over Hillary but right now I hope he drops out after the convention - because if he runs then Trump wins.
But would it be better to suffer four years under Trump, and then get a Democratic candidate that was closer to Sanders than Clinton? This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter. (not referring to the parent poster specifically)
The Democrats, for example, have no reason to move further left if all Sanders supporters vote for Clinton - if that happens, then as they see it, Clinton satisfied everyone fine! Maybe the next candidate can be even further right to pick up some Republicans! Whereas if they lose the election because of Sanders, the next candidate will have to move further left to capture those people they lost the previous election.
That's a bit simplified onto a single-axis system for the sake of example; at least some Sanders supporters would prefer Trump to Clinton. A two-axis system works better, but is less familiar to people.