HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Torture Whistleblower: ...

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:05 PM

 

Torture Whistleblower: I got 30 months in prison. Why does Leon Panetta get a pass?

by John Kiriakou

The confirmation in December that former CIA Director Leon Panetta let classified information slip to "Zero Dark Thirty" screenwriter Mark Boal during a speech at the agency headquarters should result in a criminal espionage charge if there is any truth to Obama administration claims that it isn't enforcing the Espionage Act only against political opponents.

I'm one of the people the Obama administration charged with criminal espionage, one of those whose lives were torn apart by being accused, essentially, of betraying his country. The president and the attorney general have used the Espionage Act against more people than all other administrations combined, but not against real traitors and spies. The law has been applied selectively, often against whistle-blowers and others who expose illegal, corrupt government actions.

After I blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding torture program in 2007, I was the subject of a years-long FBI investigation. In 2012, the Justice Department charged me with "disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee in classified activities." I had revealed no more than others who were never charged, about activities — that the CIA had a program to kill or capture Al Qaeda members — that were hardly secret.

<big snip>

Gen. James "Hoss" Cartwright, once known as the president's "favorite general," was reportedly targeted as the source of information about the Stuxnet virus leaked to a New York Times writer. That investigation has dropped from sight, and Cartwright has so far faced no charges.

Yet when senior National Security Agency official Thomas Drake blew the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse at the NSA — in the form of a bungled project that cost more than $1 billion — he wound up buried under espionage charges, all of which were eventually dropped but only after his life was in shreds.

When former State Department intelligence advisor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim talked to a Fox News reporter about North Korea, he was charged with espionage, and his prosecutors were absolved by the presiding judge from having to prove "that the information he allegedly leaked could damage U.S. national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially."

If Panetta and Cartwright aren't accountable while Drake, Kim and I have been crucified for harming U.S. national security — all of us accused of or investigated for the same thing: disclosing classified information to parties not authorized to know it — then what does that say about justice in America or White House hypocrisy?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kiriakou-panetta-whistleblower-20140309,0,7028492.story#ixzz2vOLrDw8Z

138 replies, 6194 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 138 replies Author Time Post
Reply Torture Whistleblower: I got 30 months in prison. Why does Leon Panetta get a pass? (Original post)
cali Mar 2014 OP
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #1
dballance Mar 2014 #4
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #5
TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #2
ProSense Mar 2014 #3
hootinholler Mar 2014 #6
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #7
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #9
xocet Mar 2014 #12
deurbano Mar 2014 #18
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #21
dsc Mar 2014 #25
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #28
dsc Mar 2014 #31
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #33
dsc Mar 2014 #37
pscot Mar 2014 #53
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #56
dsc Mar 2014 #63
dsc Mar 2014 #82
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #88
dsc Mar 2014 #92
MADem Mar 2014 #101
dsc Mar 2014 #114
MADem Mar 2014 #121
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #115
MADem Mar 2014 #100
dsc Mar 2014 #117
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #129
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #122
Marr Mar 2014 #123
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #125
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #127
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #128
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #132
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #133
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #134
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #136
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #137
MADem Mar 2014 #65
dsc Mar 2014 #81
MADem Mar 2014 #84
dsc Mar 2014 #85
MADem Mar 2014 #86
dsc Mar 2014 #118
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #131
ProSense Mar 2014 #13
dsc Mar 2014 #26
msanthrope Mar 2014 #16
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #8
Octafish Mar 2014 #10
stevenleser Mar 2014 #14
Octafish Mar 2014 #36
L0oniX Mar 2014 #57
stevenleser Mar 2014 #59
questionseverything Mar 2014 #77
Rex Mar 2014 #44
stevenleser Mar 2014 #58
msanthrope Mar 2014 #17
Octafish Mar 2014 #34
msanthrope Mar 2014 #38
Octafish Mar 2014 #48
stevenleser Mar 2014 #62
msanthrope Mar 2014 #94
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #39
Rex Mar 2014 #40
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #46
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #49
Octafish Mar 2014 #74
bvar22 Mar 2014 #11
xocet Mar 2014 #19
bvar22 Mar 2014 #22
xocet Mar 2014 #24
bvar22 Mar 2014 #29
Rex Mar 2014 #42
Octafish Mar 2014 #47
L0oniX Mar 2014 #60
hughee99 Mar 2014 #120
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #135
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #15
librechik Mar 2014 #20
JJChambers Mar 2014 #23
msanthrope Mar 2014 #43
L0oniX Mar 2014 #27
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #30
ProSense Mar 2014 #32
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #35
msanthrope Mar 2014 #41
L0oniX Mar 2014 #54
msanthrope Mar 2014 #67
L0oniX Mar 2014 #73
msanthrope Mar 2014 #89
L0oniX Mar 2014 #90
msanthrope Mar 2014 #91
L0oniX Mar 2014 #93
msanthrope Mar 2014 #95
L0oniX Mar 2014 #96
msanthrope Mar 2014 #98
L0oniX Mar 2014 #99
Rex Mar 2014 #45
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #50
stevenleser Mar 2014 #61
truebluegreen Mar 2014 #51
underthematrix Mar 2014 #52
truebluegreen Mar 2014 #55
WillyT Mar 2014 #64
rafeh1 Mar 2014 #66
rhett o rick Mar 2014 #69
rhett o rick Mar 2014 #68
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #70
rhett o rick Mar 2014 #71
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #79
KoKo Mar 2014 #103
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #109
KoKo Mar 2014 #104
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #106
La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2014 #72
xocet Mar 2014 #75
rhett o rick Mar 2014 #76
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #80
KoKo Mar 2014 #102
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #105
ProSense Mar 2014 #107
ProSense Mar 2014 #87
sibelian Mar 2014 #78
woo me with science Mar 2014 #83
Sunlei Mar 2014 #97
Catherina Mar 2014 #108
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #110
Catherina Mar 2014 #111
CJCRANE Mar 2014 #113
Catherina Mar 2014 #116
struggle4progress Mar 2014 #130
woo me with science Mar 2014 #112
woo me with science Mar 2014 #119
wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #124
MindMover Mar 2014 #126
woo me with science Mar 2014 #138

Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:09 PM

1. Except Kiriakou lied about waterboarding. It was a limited hangout at best

and deliberate misinformation at worst.

"Kiriakou, who did not witness the waterboarding, said... it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to extract answers to an interrogator's questions from Abu Zubaydah.

...He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably 30, 35 seconds...and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.

Eventually it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times, and that little or no useful extra information may have been gained by "harsh methods".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiriakou#Disclosing_torture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:31 PM

4. I'm having a hard time finding where Kirikou lied cited in that Wikipedia entry

 

Objective reading of the entry would seem to point out that he was, at worst misinformed, about how many times Zubaydah was water-boarding. I don't see any reason reasonable motivation for him to "lie" and claim there was only one instance of water-boarding when being able to say that there were 83 instances of it would've been far more damning of the CIA.

Did I miss something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:58 PM

5. His motivation was to defend the practice.

He wasn't "whistleblowing" in the sense of saying "look at the bad things we're doing".

He was involved in a limited hangout that said that waterboarding was so good they only had to do it once and then Abu Zubaydah was singing like a canary. It was a massive lie.

Now, that's a separate issue than whether he should have gone to prison or not but Kiriakou is not a heroic "whistleblower", he was carrying water for the policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:19 PM

2. Leon Panetta went from the CIA to the DoD, which conveniently gave his staff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:22 PM

3. This is

The confirmation in December that former CIA Director Leon Panetta let classified information slip to "Zero Dark Thirty" screenwriter Mark Boal during a speech at the agency headquarters should result in a criminal espionage charge if there is any truth to Obama administration claims that it isn't enforcing the Espionage Act only against political opponents.

<...>

A transcript obtained by the organization Judicial Watch shows that, at a CIA awards ceremony attended by Boal, Panetta did exactly that. The CIA seems to acknowledge that Panetta accidentally revealed the name of the special forces ground commander who led the operation to kill Osama bin Laden, not knowing that the Hollywood screenwriter was part of an audience cleared to hear him speak. But intent is not relevant to Espionage Act enforcement.

...a very weird argument to be making. Not only is he comparing what he implies is an unintentional leak to his leaking information, but also he's making the case that no one should ever leak classified information. He's doing it to justify why he shouldn't have been prosecuted. Clapper refused to respond accurately to a question because it meant revealing classified information. By Kiriakou's logic he was right.

On October 22, 2012, Kiriakou pled guilty to disclosing classified information about a fellow CIA officer that connected the covert operative to a specific operation. Kiriakou thus became the second C.I.A. officer convicted of violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the first for passing along classified information to a reporter, although the reporter did not publish the name of the operative. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison on January 25, 2013,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:03 PM

6. Lying to Congress is a crime

Clapper should have said he can't answer in an unclassified forum, but he chose to lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:12 PM

7. Tell that to Darryl Issa

and Paul Ryan!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:15 PM

9. If the Senate feels it would be appropriate, the Senate has options for action against Clapper

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:10 PM

12. So does Obama. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:26 PM

18. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:34 PM

21. The Senate lies in a different branch of government from the Executive, and so

it would be inappropriate for the President to presume to defend the prerogatives of the Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #21)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:49 PM

25. that is absurd

President Obama has every right, and quite frankly every obligation, to fire members of his staff who lie to Congress while under oath, which is what Clapper did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:10 PM

28. Do we possess (say) any official act of the Senate indicating that the Senate is outraged somehow?

Or such an official act by any of its committees?

Or even just a "dear colleague" letter, signed by a considerable subset of the Senators, indicating such a sentiment among a sizable minority?

It is not the task of the Executive to discern the stance of the Senate, or the views of its various members, by exercising some extra-sensory perception

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:17 PM

31. This isn't some Talmudic matter of interpretation

Clapper was directly asked if the government was doing A, he stated, categorically that the government was not doing A, it turns out the government was doing A. Despite the passage of months he did nothing to correct the record until Mr. Snowden showed the government was, in fact, doing A. The man Cheney shot was OK with having been shot, does that mean it is OK that Cheney got away with it. Permitting his employees to lie under oath sets a horrible example, regardless of how many, or how few, letters are sent to him about the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:34 PM

33. The Senate's outrage is to be gauged by the actual outrage expressed by the Senate itself:

the Talmud has nothing whatsoever to do with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:42 PM

37. I don't care if the Senate is outraged or it isn't

plenty of wife batters are prosecuted over the strenuous objections of their wives every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:30 PM

53. Don't feed the trolls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:58 PM

56. That stand will leave you entirely without any firm ground under your feet,

as it relegates all responsibility for oversight of Executive agencies to the Executive itself

Our system makes Congress one of the branches of the government and mostly leaves to politics the task of sorting out the inevitable power struggles, including questions of whether or not the Executive adequately informs Congress about operations

If Congress considers itself inadequately informed, or misinformed, or misled, it is the task of Congress to formulate appropriate response

And if you find Congressional inaction not to your taste, then it seems to me that it is for you to try to instigate and organize pressure on Congress to act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:19 PM

63. I am not arguing the inverse

I am saying that Obama, and for that matter any President, has an obligation to fire those who lie to Congress under oath while they are working for him without regard to the lack of outrage that lie may have caused. I am not arguing that he has no duty to fire in the absence or presence of outrage. Again, we prosecute all types of criminals regardless of how their victims feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 08:11 AM

82. I wonder what your opinion of this is

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/07/220573/intelligence-panel-staffers-took.html

Democratic staffers of the Senate Intelligence Committee obtained classified documents at the center of a bitter struggle with the CIA some three years before the agency determined that the materials had been spirited out of a secret facility and demanded their return, according to U.S. officials.

The officials cited the timing of the discovery in contending that the CIA didn’t actively monitor computers used by the staffers to compile a report on the agency’s secret detention and interrogation program, but instead had to go back and scour security logs kept on all classified systems.

The alleged unauthorized removal of the documents, which is being investigated by the FBI, triggered the unprecedented battle over the authority of the committee, which was created in 1976 to oversee U.S. intelligence organizations in the wake of a series of domestic spying scandals. And what also remains unknown is what secrets about the controversial interrogation program might be contained in the documents now in dispute.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/07/220573/intelligence-panel-staffers-took.html#storylink=cpy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #82)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:26 AM

88. It's standard Washington baseball: something important is happening at third base,

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

so naturally there's suddenly a big dispute in the outfield and everybody focuses their attention there

The real issue is whether or not the Senate report will see the light of day. Any large agency, like the CIA, is a swamp with multiple competing factions, especially when any issue of substance arises: then all kinds of gaming suddenly becomes apparent. The question -- How did the Senate investigators become aware of a document, that some in the CIA claim the investigators had no access to? -- may seem interesting at first sight, but it's actually a diversion

It seems very unlikely to me that Senate investigators hacked the CIA network. It is possible, of course, that the CIA's document control methods may not control documents as effectively as some CIA staff think, and that the document was available to the investigators purely by accident. But IMO the most likely answer to the question is that the someone in the CIA itself somehow gave the Senate investigators access to the document, either directly or indirectly -- in which case the availability could reflect an intent to make additional information available to the Senate investigators, or could reflect a deliberate intent to drum up a "sexy" controversy about whether or not the Senate investigators had hacked the CIA network. But none of this matters: it's a diversion from the real issue

One should take the stand: Congress has some duty to oversee the Executive in general and the intelligence community in particular. Torture is a violation of international law. The Senate report must be released to the public

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #88)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:52 AM

92. Just how can oversight occur

if lying isn't punished. Let's be clear here. Clapper never corrected the record from the lie he told the committee in public. He didn't correct it publicly which might be justified but he also didn't correct it privately either which means the overseers had no idea just what they were overseeing. You can't be both pro oversight and pro the executive's minions lying to Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #92)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 11:22 AM

101. How do you know that?

He might have addressed the issue in a classified letter or other document.

You'd never see that; you'd never know...at least not until the document was unclassified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #101)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 03:51 PM

114. sure he didn't

He has addressed this issue many, many times since the Snowden documents out his lie. Not once, not on a single solitary occasion, did he say I told the committee in private that I had lied. It is more likely that I will win the Boston Marathon than he has corrected his testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #114)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 12:15 AM

121. You wouldn't know--neither would I--if he wrote a classified letter to the committee.

Is the committee coming after him?

No?

They either have concluded their business with him satisfactorily, or they simply don't give a shit. Or both.

You can keep pounding the drum for the committee to call him to account, but there comes a point in time when the ship has sailed. I think we're well past that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #92)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 03:52 PM

115. It seems to be your view, that a hundred Senators together with their staffs cannot parse Clapper,

or read and understand their own committee transcripts, or follow a story in the press intelligently, half as well as you think you yourself can

Now, if you merely want to take the view that an informed citizen can sometimes be better informed about events than a typical member of Congress, I will not dispute that view, as it seems to me sufficiently credible and adequately defensible from experience: on many issues, that I think ought to matter enough to the members of Congress, for them to inform themselves well, do not actually appear to matter much to many of them, so far as I can tell -- but that is a political matter

There is no shortage of intellect or energy on The Hill: there is simply the question of how that intellect and energy will be expended. When people actually decide to pay attention (usually briefly), they often find themselves disappointed somehow about the choices made: if it matters enough, some try to exert pressure for specific changes, which can require learning more about the process and the players than most others would consider interesting

The reality is that at present most Senators, and their staffs, seem never to have developed much interest in last spring's Affair Clapper. Should you feel strongly otherwise, you are free to attempt to organize political pressure on Congress to demand Clapper's resignation, but IMO you are striking cold iron with little chance of reshaping it


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 11:21 AM

100. I love the "Every Little Sparrow" pile-ons when it comes to Obama....

He should interfere with the Senate! He should tell the House how to do their job! He should tell that jury to find that defendant guilty!! He should fire that governor, police chief, mayor, dog catcher...!

People don't understand the differences between local, state and national governments--I suppose getting the concept of separation of powers down is too much to hope for...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #100)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 04:03 PM

117. I would like a quote of me doing any of the above

and yes I mean a quote of me saying Obama should tell the House how to do its job, tell a jury to find a defendant guilty or innocent, fire a governor, a police chief or a mayor. I do think he should discipline his employees when they engage in conduct which at best is deeply immoral and at worst against the law. The absolute best you can say about Clapper's conduct is that it was deeply immoral the worst, it was outright perjury. I am not saying Obama should jail him, nor even that the DOJ should prosecute him, though I think a case could well be made for exactly that, but I am saying he should have fired him immediately for his dishonesty. Again, this man serves at the pleasure of the President. The President is the only one who can fire him, and he should have done so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #117)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 12:45 PM

129. This is another example of Washington baseball, and once again you've been distracted

by events in the outfield when you should have been paying attention to what happens on the diamond

The March 12th hearing had two parts, an open public part, followed by a closed session:



This relates to inherent constitutional conflicts between the Executive and Congress

The current arrangement recognizes that the Executive has legitimate reasons to restrict circulation of certain classified information and that Congress has legitimate needs for some of that information for its oversight responsibilities. Therefore the Executive releases some information to intelligence committees, with the understanding that those committees will not make the information public. This understanding is not enforceable by prosecution, since the debate clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6) immunizes representatives and senators for statements made upon the floor: for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. But a violation of the understanding are enforceable politically, since the Executive can always refuse to release certain information on the grounds that Congress cannot be trusted to safeguard the information -- so failure by a member to honor confidentiality understandings are very likely to result in removal of the member from the intelligence committee and may also produce other sequelae (such as censure by the chamber) intended to reassure the Executive that Congress can be trusted to safeguard the information

A member of such a committee, like Wyden, thus has access to information which the member has promised not to disclose, which the member actually could disclose without any legal consequence, but which the member probably cannot disclose without significant political consequence. The problem of calling public attention to an issue, when the member believes the public ought to be aware of the issue but cannot conveniently release related information to raise public awareness of the issue, therefore becomes a matter of careful strategic game-playing

In this case, Wyden seems to have been quite aware of the extensive metadata collection program at the time he asked the question during the public part of the committtee hearing. By asking the question, he deliberately put Clapper on the spot, because Clapper (unlike members of Congress) has no automatic immunity for statements made to Congress but is nevertheless subject to other legal obligations to safeguard classified information. Our natural guess should be that Wyden hoped Clapper would offer No comment, or a similar statement that could be converted into a public controversy to call attention to the activities that concerned Wyden but that Wyden could not directly bring to public attention. Clapper, however, did not respond in the desired manner:

... "I realized later Sen. Wyden was asking about ... metadata collection, rather than content collection," Clapper wrote. "Thus, my response was clearly erroneous, for which I apologize." Feinstein said in a statement Tuesday: "I have received Director Clapper's letter and believe it speaks for itself. I have no further comment at this time." Wyden spokesman Tom Caiazza said Tuesday that when Wyden staffers contacted Clapper's office shortly after the hearing, his staffers "acknowledged that the statement was inaccurate but refused to correct the public record when given the opportunity" ...
Clapper apologizes for 'erroneous' answer on NSA
By KIMBERLY DOZIER
Jul. 2, 2013 6:33 PM EDT


Thus, in actual fact, Clapper does not seem deliberately to have mislead the intelligence committee, though his testimony at the public part of the hearing must certainly have misled the public. And while it can sometimes be criminal to lie under oath to Congress, on a matter material to a legitimate Congressional inquiry, no consequence can follow, absent a complaint from Congress itself

We should regard Wyden's March 2013 gambit as a deliberate attempt to call attention to the metadata program, but unfortunately it failed at the time. The later resurrection of Clapper's public testimony, by Wyden and his staff in June and July, merely represents a renewed attempt to signal political opposition to the metadata collection program

But the issue of Clapper's testimony a year ago now lies entirely in the outfield;it is a distraction from the real issue on the diamond --- the metadata collection program. That program cannot be reduced or ended, until we engineer considerable Congressional opposition to it. Clapper's resignation would not end the program, because Clapper himself is not the source of the program but merely occupies an institutional slot: a successful drive for Clapper's resignation would leave the program untouched, and that effort would, in fact, exhaust all the political energy that should have been directed against the metadata program itself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 12:31 AM

122. Presidents can't fire people?

Without consulting Congress?

But they can order the assassination of a human being without consulting Congress?

Which is it, the president has NO power, or the president has the power of a King?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #122)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 12:42 AM

123. When the subject under discsussion is some questionable act

 

taken by the executive or one of his staff, he's completely powerless. Why, he can't even be expected to know anything about it.

When the subject under discussion is something that will play well with voters, he's practically a king who made it happen all by himself.

And of course, in Republican hands, presidency is transformed into an always immensely-powerful dictatorship-- so be sure to vote for any worthless sell-out the corporate Dems offer up because, hey-- can't let the GOP hold that all-powerful, yet utterly insignificant, office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #123)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:06 AM

125. Very well put. Wouldn't it be easier to face facts? I couldn't do the contortions it takes to try

keep up with defending things that cannot be defended. No matter how hard anyone tries, extra-judicial assassination is WRONG. And yes, President's CAN fire people and do. Van Jones didn't last long after the Far Right went after him for something so trivial ignoring it as it deserved, would have been the way to handle it.

Honesty is always the best policy, for one thing is so much less stressful ....

"that all powerful, yet utterly insignificant, office"

Perfect description!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #122)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 11:15 AM

127. Why? To satisfy Senators Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham? Or to satisfy Republican Representatives

Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, and Walter Jones?

It's the familiar Mad-about-Benghazi crowd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #127)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 11:53 AM

128. How about because it's the right thing to do? Do you refrain from doing what is right just to stick

it to irrelevant morons? Frankly I have zero interest in what Republicans have to say only in what is of benefit to this country. Are you suggesting that the President bases his decisions on what Republicans think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #128)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:31 PM

132. Translation: you consider yourself the final arbiter of what's right



I tried to discover who in Congress was calling for Clapper's resignation. I posted upthread the names I found: Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham in the Senate; Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, and Walter Jones in the House

Those irrelevant Republican morons, all outraged about Benghazi, are the only folk you've got to work with here: Congress itself expresses no outrage; there's nowhere else to go with this

And it's a big red herring anyway, if your intent is to fight metadata collection, because Clapper's resignation wouldn't do a thing to reduce or end metadata collection -- and if folk invested lots of energy and actually got Clapper to resign, the metadata collection issue would immediately lose all traction, because The Hill collectively would say: OK, Clapper resigned, so we're done with this issue and can move on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #132)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 02:11 PM

133. Lying to Congress ISN"T wrong? No my idea regarding firing liars, and prosecuting war criminals who

lied to Cognress also, or any other crook in our government, I hope this isn't too shocking a thought, is to try to improve our Government so that War Criminals and Liars about violations of the people's rights don't view our government as great place to plant themselves, that it becomes one of the only places where Criminals are safe from consequences for their crimes.

Are YOU saying we should KEEP crooks and liars in Congress and if so, what possible reason could there be for that, because as I said, I don't base applyin the Rule of Law, we still have some laws don't we, on what a political party has to say one way or the other.

What a shame that Democrats are not speaking out about lying to Congress. Could it be that the NSA has something on all of them, being that we know now they have been spying on Congress. There seems to be no logical reason why a Civilized Coutnry would tolerate War Criminals and Liars and other assorted crooks in their government corrupting our system of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #133)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 02:52 PM

134. Who in Congress says Clapper lied? In the Senate, I find Rand Paul; in the House, I find

rightwing Republicans James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, and Walter Jones -- all members of the mad-about-Benghazi clique

You're striking an iron that's been cold for a year, and you're doing it on behalf of crazy rightwingers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #134)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 08:57 PM

136. There's no statute of limitations on lying to Congress that I know of. And Ron Wyden is

a Democrat. Clapper lied to a Democrat. But he isn't the only one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #136)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 09:16 PM

137. Ron Wyden has never to my knowledge described Clapper's testimony as a lie

If you can find a direct quote from Wyden, that uses the word "lie:" to describe Clapper's testimony, I will (of course) be interested

Absent that, I continue to regard your claims as being somewhat careless of the truth

My view of the matter is laid forth carefully in my #129

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:31 PM

65. Nope. It is the responsibility of Congress to hold people accountable--or not--for contempt.

Obama is not the king,he's the chief executive (his area is the "executive" branch--not the legislative). He does not have "the power." Congress does.

So your assertion, you see, is unsupported.

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.


For those who want Clapper frog-marched, they'll just have to "call Congress right effing now" and see if they'll do anything about it.

I'm betting they are disinclined. In any event, it is not in Obama's charge to chasten people for what they say in front of Congress. That is the job of the representatives of We The People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #65)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 08:09 AM

81. So when Nixon's henchmen lied to Congress

Nixon had no responsibility for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #81)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 08:34 AM

84. It is the responsibility of Congress to impose consequences for that.

It wasn't the tooth fairy that persuaded Nixon to resign, now, was it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #84)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 08:41 AM

85. One of the reasons they forced him to

was that he didn't fire those henchmen until well after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #85)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:17 AM

86. Well, if that is what you want to believe, you go right ahead.

I prefer to think he resigned because he was about to be impeached and removed from office for actual, personal "high crimes and misdemeanors," not for the misdeeds of his staff or how long it took to dismiss them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #86)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 04:05 PM

118. the whole point of Watergate was the misdeeds of his staff at his behest

with the exception of the tax matter, which I don't think passed the House, all the articles of Impeachment were for things he either ordered his staff to do or things he covered up which his staff had done at his behest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #118)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:14 PM

131. Here are the actual articles of impeachment

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:12 PM

13. "Clapper should have said he can't answer in an unclassified forum, but he chose to lie."

Yeah, like that would have made any difference.

It would still have been a lie. I mean, can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:49 PM

26. No it wouldn't have been a lie

the answer was likely classified which is what that answer would have said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:21 PM

16. Eh...not really. Lying is not itself a crime, unless the elements of perjury are met. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:13 PM

8. Kiriakou pled guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act

He wasn't prosecuted for his so-called "whistle-blowing" on torture in 2007

I've never liked the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: the act criminalizes some research based on entirely public information. But Kiriakou pled guilty, so it's hard to claim he was unfairly prosecuted

And Kiriakou is a scumbag

His so-called "whistle-blowing" in 2007 was actually a defense of torture: Kiriakou was busily telling the media just how wonderfully effective he thought waterboarding was -- and he stretched the truth considerably to push that kool-aid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:18 PM

10. Same reason PFC Manning rots in prison instead of war criminals Bush and Cheney.

Telling the Truth isn't a priority in a national security cough police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:14 PM

14. Is that really what you are asserting? Manning is the same as a torture defender? See #8 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:41 PM

36. No. I'm asserting a government that lets Bush and Cheney go is corrupt.

They lied American into wars for profit and remain free.

Meanwhile, the few whistleblowers named in this thread are in prison. That also is corrupt.

Why does this have to be explained to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:59 PM

57. Indeed! There is no law for them and plenty of law for the 99%. Justice? pffft

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #36)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:05 PM

59. You said the treatment of this torture defender is the same as Manning. So you are comparing the two

 

Either defend the comparison or take it back. There is no third choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #59)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:41 AM

77. comey is a torture defender


https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-human-rights/james-comey-two-thumbs-waterboarding



That brings us to the second key torture memo. Because Bybee II had relied on withdrawn Bybee I, waterboarding and other torture tactics were on even shakier legal ground. Comey reportedly ordered a replacement opinion for Bybee I, so that Bybee II would have a revised legal foundation.

The new opinion—addressed to "Deputy Attorney General James Comey"—was signed on December 30, 2004. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the new Comey memo does not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos. In short, the Comey memo gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding. Read the footnote for yourself:

While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.

Even with this new memo, the Bush White House and CIA were still worried about whether they could get away with torture. They ordered up additional legal memos in the spring of 2005. The first memo essentially is a rewrite of Bybee II, with basically a how-to guide on how to simulate drowning, induce hypothermia, slam a person into a wall, and otherwise commit torture and abuse and get away with it. The second memo approved the use of these tactics in combination.

Comey gave a second thumbs-up to waterboarding in signing off on the May 2005 rewrite of Bybee II. He reportedly wrote an email to a colleague at the time, in which he said he "concurred" with the new torture memo. At the same time, he strenuously opposed the approval of the second memo combining torture tactics. Waterboarding was okay, as long as it was done the "right" way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:51 PM

44. Wow, you must have had a hard time spinning that one!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #44)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:04 PM

58. Obviously not since several other folks got the same impression

 

The question is, if you are a fan of Manning, why wouldnt you be upset having her compared to a torture apologist?

Or is that just fine with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:22 PM

17. Um...John Kiriakou thought waterboarding was a good thing. I'm betting Chelsea Manning

 

does not share that view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:36 PM

34. Really nice smear, msanthrope.

Here's where I get my POV:



CIA/Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou

John Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, the CIA started down the dark path of becoming a paramilitary organization, but Kiriakou did not abandon his. He refused the CIA’s offer to train him in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and Kiriakou never authorized or engaged in these techniques that constituted torture. In fact, Kiriakou wrote of torture: “There are some things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”

KiriakouAfter leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm that the agency waterboarded detainees and label waterboarding as torture. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

The government started investigating Kiriakou immediately after his media appearance. Five years later, the government finally succeeded in piecing together enough information to criminally prosecute him. He became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies, not whistleblowers.

When Kiriakou came to GAP for help, we began acting as his legal counsel on whistleblower issues and started a public advocacy campaign on his case. Eventually, in order to avoid a trial that could have resulted in separation from his wife and five children for up to 45 years, he opted to plead guilty to one count (not Espionage) in exchange for a 30-month sentence.

Kiriakou is the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program, despite the fact that he never tortured anyone. Rather, he blew the whistle on this horrific wrongdoing.

Kiriakou’s Service To His Country

Kiriakou worked at the CIA from 1990 until 2004, risking his life on several occasions. He began his career at the CIA as an analyst, and later served as a counterterrorism operations officer overseas.


[font size="2"]Abu_Zubaydah
Kiriakou led the CIA team in the March 2002 raid and capture of Abu Zubaydah, then-al Qaeda’s #3.[/font size]


After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Kiriakou became the chief of counterterrorism operations in Pakistan. CIA officials offered to train Kiriakou in “enhanced interrogation techniques," but he refused. While serving in Pakistan, Kiriakou led the CIA team in the March 2002 raid and capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was considered al Qaeda’s third-ranking official at the time. Kiriakou sat with Abu Zubaydah for days after his capture, but did not witness the agency waterboarding him. The CIA distributed disinformation internally that Zubaydah had been waterboarded one time, and that as a result, he had “cracked.” It was later revealed that the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times, and the waterboarding had not resulted in any actionable intelligence. Although Zubaydah’s interrogations were videotaped, the CIA later destroyed the videos despite a judicial order to preserve them, claiming it was done to protect the identities of agents shown in the footage. Following Zubaydah’s capture, Kiriakou became Executive Assistant to the CIA’s Deputy Director for Operations, where he served as the Director of Central Intelligence’s principal Iraq briefer.

Kiriakou left the CIA in March 2004. He later served as a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as senior intelligence advisor to Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry. Kiriakou also authored a book and worked as an intelligence consultant.

Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department’s Meritorious Honor Award.

Kiriakou’s Disclosures

In the 2007 interview on ABC News, Kiriakou became the first CIA officer to publicly confirm that the CIA had waterboarded prisoners, and that such an action was torture. He also confirmed that torture was an official U.S. government policy, rather than wrongdoing by a few rogue agents.

CONTINUED with links, details, video, etc...

http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/torture/ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou



If you believe in democracy, you'd say We the People need more of him. Then again, that's somebody with Integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:45 PM

38. You are the one who brought up Manning. Not me. Frankly, I'm puzzled why you

 

would suggest Chelsea Manning is in any way linked to a torture apologist who lied to help Mukasey get confirmed--lied and said that waterboarding was effective--



Kiriakou came into the public debate over torture and waterboarding on ABC World News in 2007, where correspondent Brian Ross (12/10/07) used him to advance the argument that waterboarding had an almost instantaneous effect on getting the truth from captured Al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. FAIR noted at the time that his comments should have been treated with more skepticism; the immediate implication viewers were to draw was that there was debate over torture's legality and/or effectiveness, and Kiriakou was telling us that it worked:


ROSS: So in your view, the waterboarding broke him?

KIRIAKOU: I think it did, yes.

ROSS: And did it make a difference in terms of…

KIRIAKOU: It did. The threat information that he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.

ROSS: And bottom line, as you sit here now, do you think that was worth it?

KIRIAKOU: Yes.

But as the Times' Shane put it (and has been known for several years), this was not correct:


While he had spent hours with Abu Zubaydah after the capture, he had not been present when Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded, a fact he made clear to me and some other interviewers. But based on what he had heard and read at the agency, he told ABC and other news organizations that Abu Zubaydah had stopped resisting after just 30 or 35 seconds of the suffocating procedure and told interrogators all he knew.


That was grossly inaccurate–the prisoner was waterboarded some 83 times, it turned out. Mr. Kiriakou believes that he and other CIA officers were deliberately misled by other agency officers who knew the truth.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/01/08/is-john-kiriakou-a-whistleblower/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #38)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:57 PM

48. Kiriakou exposed the waterboarding.

Do you really think he would if he was OK with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:09 PM

62. Yes, he was a proponent of waterboarding. If you didn't know that, that is on you, but you have the

 

opportunity to take the comparison back.

I recommend that is what you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:18 AM

94. YES!!! HE WAS TOTALLY OKAY WITH IT!!! He lied to the American people about the

 

efficacy of waterboarding!

Look....this person has been smart enough to garner support by claiming he was a whistleblower about torture. He wasn't whistleblowing---he was bragging. And that lying helped get Mukasey confirmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:48 PM

39. The truth was going to come out. Kiriakou served to blunt the impact of the real revelations

because he had already done a positive (very) limited hangout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:48 PM

40. They never give up do they?

 

If only we would see 10% of that 'drive' spent on getting Dubya put behind bars. Oh well, as you can see many many Dems LOVE them some Big Brother!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:52 PM

46. There is a difference between "whistleblowing" and a "limited hangout".

I'm not defending sending him to prison, that is another issue.

But he is most definitely not a whistleblowing hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #40)


Response to Rex (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 08:57 PM

74. ''Everyone is corrupt, I’ve come to learn,'' John Kiriakou said.

It's like going to the police station to report a bank robbery and finding the sergeant at the desk was one of the robbers.



Imprisoned CIA Whistle-Blower John Kiriakou Has Advice for Edward Snowden

“Everyone is corrupt, I’ve come to learn”

by Thomas Hedges
Published on Friday, July 12, 2013 by Salon

John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who blew the whistle on Bush’s torture program and is now in prison, sent an open letter to Edward Snowden last week warning him not to trust the FBI.

“DO NOT,” Kiriakou wrote, “under any circumstances, cooperate with the FBI. FBI agents will lie, trick, and deceive you. They will twist your words and play on your patriotism to entrap you. They will pretend to be people they are not – supporters, well-wishers, and friends – all the while wearing wires to record your out-of-context statements to use against you. The FBI is the enemy; it’s part of the problem, not the solution.”

These are the words of a registered Republican who voted for Gary Johnson, whom the Rosenberg Fund for Children denied a grant, informing him that he wasn’t “liberal enough,” Kiriakou says, for the award — and who last year received a birthday card from Jerry Falwell Jr.

Kiriakou is the first CIA veteran to be imprisoned. It was after he blew the whistle on Bush’s torture program that the CIA, FBI and Justice Department came down on him, at first charging him with aiding the enemy and later convicting him of disclosing the identities of undercover colleagues at the CIA.

SNIP...

[font color="red"]“In this weird, roundabout way,” he told me then, “the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA made me the anti-torture guy, which I never set out to be … But over the years,” despite the initial intentions, “my feelings have grown stronger and stronger” against torture, “that torture is not right under any circumstances.”[/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/12-0



Hmmm. Weird is right. FBI and CIA made him out to be something he wasn't, but would become. And to think we even try to help such understand, eh, Rex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:39 PM

11. Who got "charged" or "investigated" for outing Agent Valerie Plame?

Our government (Democrats & Republicans) lost ALL pretense at being able to supervise themselves
when they turned their backs & ran away from that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:31 PM

19. How gauche! All good Americans know that it is impolite to look and/or lean backward.

Forward is the only polite direction for looking and/or leaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:39 PM

22. My momma always told me that my bad manners was why we couldn't have nice things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:47 PM

24. Thanks for the Seinfeld video clip.

P.S. Do you happen to speak French and do you like puns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:11 PM

29. I love puns, but sadly,

despite my upbringing in New Orleans and the Cajan Bayous of South Louisiana,
I speak no French,
or "Fraunch" as they say in Grand Chenier, Louisiana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:50 PM

42. YEP.

 

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:54 PM

47. Brewster Jennings & Assoc. FOUGHT NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEFT.

Fighting the spread of WMDs, in general. Counternuclearproliferation, specifically.

Yet, Bush and Cheney stopped them and endangered their network -- just to get at Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Sorry to shout, bvar 22. It's for the hard of understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:06 PM

60. Hmmm I think it was Scooter Libby ...who was almost immediatly pardoned by...

 

yep ...the war criminal and chief ...George W Bush

...and the original leaker was Mr Grumpy (sorry forgot his name) ...some self important asscarrot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #60)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 05:46 PM

120. The original leaker was Richard Armitage, from the State department, and technically,

Libby got clemency, not a pardon. He got out of jail, but still had the fine and conviction on his record and had to serve probation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #120)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 03:17 PM

135. That Armitage "confession" was just muddying the water as part of the cover-up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:17 PM

15. And, the perpetrators of the actual waterboarding got a pass.

 

"We have to look forward..." , and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:33 PM

20. what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:41 PM

23. It's OK when our team does it because GO TEAM! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JJChambers (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:50 PM

43. Waterboarding is never okay--this was the man who said it was--it was effective. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 02:58 PM

27. Oh stop it will ya? There are Acts that protect whistleblowers.

 

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I've been reassured from the "My mother ..drunk of sober" government totalitarian shill gang that had any whistleblower gone to a lawyer first they would be protected ....because of course they never needed a whistleblower act in the first place. Oh of course all the concern for U.S. national security over human rights and the constitution is so patriotic. I am sooo sick of these malicious COINTELPRO loving plants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:14 PM

30. I think Kiriakou was a neocon shill rather than a whistleblower.

He was defending the then policy of the Bush administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:32 PM

32. Yes, he was claiming that waterboarding works. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:39 PM

35. Exactly. He claimed that they only waterboarded Abu Zubaydah for 30 seconds

and he then spilled the beans so to speak.

When more information came out it turned out that he had been waterboarded 83 times and KSM over 180 times (IIRC) with no clear indication that it was useful.

But of course by then, Kiriakou had already set the perception that it was a useful technique, and RW pundits rely on that perception to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:49 PM

41. There are acts that protect whistleblowers. You seem rather upset and have resorted to personal

 

attacks that seem to stem from your interpersonal experiences with your family.

I urge you to cease the personal attacks, as 1) they make your argument less cohesive, and 2) are indicative of issues you may not wish to share. I am not your mother, and I am sorry you apparently have a bad relationship with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #41)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:33 PM

54. "personal attacks" Really? Ok ...now it's all about you? Whatever.

 

Most likely this is not applicable so this may or may not help you.
narcissism: Hypersensitivity to any insults or "imagined insults" (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #54)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 06:28 PM

67. Indeed--in the other thread, it was quite clear who you were referencing with this post--

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4630767

Look, I get that you are upset with your mother, but I think it's inappropriate to bring it up in the context that you did. I urge you to refrain from conflating anonymous Internet posters with your family members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #67)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 08:52 PM

73. "Look, I get that you are upset with your mother" <--- is that wimpy personal insult all you got?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #73)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:26 AM

89. I don't personally insult DUers--particularly those who are exhibiting as much pain and distress as

 

you are.

I'm merely asking you to work out your family issues without involving me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #89)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:37 AM

90. "I'm merely asking you to work out your family issues" LMAO

 

Project much? You are only embarrassing your self in front of your DU betters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #90)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:46 AM

91. My DU betters? Look, it's pretty obvious you are upset with me. And, that you

 

have some issue with me that you have conflated with problems with your mother. I don't think you quoted Chesterton so often and so vehemently just for fun....so, I urge you to resolve whatever problems you have, and leave me out of it.

Why not put me on ignore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #91)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:56 AM

93. "you have conflated with problems with your mother" LMAO ...imagination is all you got.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #93)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:19 AM

95. Why not put me on ignore, since I stress you out so much? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #95)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:21 AM

96. Oh boy ...seen this before ...the ol begging to be put on ignore blather.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #96)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:24 AM

98. Oh..I'm not begging you to, merely suggesting it for your sake. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #98)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:27 AM

99. "for your sake" Your concern is touching.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 03:51 PM

45. K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT people!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #45)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:04 PM

50. There are two issues here:

1) whether he deserves to be behind bars
2) whether he's a whistleblower

I don't know enough about the law to speak on (1) but I remember his role very clearly at the time as an apologist for waterboarding.

I watched the interviews when they went out at the time and he was very clearly defending the waterboarding program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #45)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:07 PM

61. And once again, you assert argumentum ad hominem as a valid practice. Noted again. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:20 PM

51. Says all we need to know

 

about justice in America and White House hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #51)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:30 PM

52. so you really meant to put "white" and "house"

together in the other half of your sentence? very very funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 04:33 PM

55. ? I was quoting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:27 PM

64. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 06:18 PM

66. thats because we have a criminal justice system

A justice system which publicly describes itself as criminal will provide criminal results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rafeh1 (Reply #66)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 07:14 PM

69. Good one. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 07:13 PM

68. It amazes me that we have posters here that consistently disparage whistle-blowers

 

and take the side of people like Panetta or Clapper. I dont expect that on a politically liberal message board.

The point of the OP was that punishment for the 1% isnt the same as for the 99%, and there are those here that rationalize that, that is ok.

Gen Clapper lied to Congress. He even admitted it when he choose to tell Ms. Mitchell his explanation INSTEAD OF CONGRESS. And there are people here that try to justify his lie.

Rachel Maddow said when speaking to Jon Stewart (I am paraphrasing from memory), that what we did with Iraq influences what we do today and will continue to influence us until we make those responsible accountable.

Throwing whistle-blowers in prison and allowing war criminals to be on talk shows is unconscionable. It is not what America is all about and those that try to rationalize that away are choosing the wrong side. This is a class war and Panetta, Clapper, Cartwright work for the 1%, and whistle-blowers work for the 99%. Which side are you on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #68)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 07:18 PM

70. Kiriakou shilled for the neocons. He was a torture apologist. I know which side I'm on.

However fair your general point is it doesn't alter the fact that Kiriakou was a neocon stooge who planted the notion in the MSM that torture was unbelievably quick and effective: "just 30 seconds" of waterboarding and your detainee will be singing like a canary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #70)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 08:23 PM

71. I respect your dislike of Kiriakou but that should be beside the point. The point as I see it is

 

that whistle-blowers are treated badly while people that work for the 1% are given a pass, for the same crime or worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #71)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 05:17 AM

79. Yes, he was treated badly but he was a propagandist not a whistleblower.

That's what I object to. Kiriakou is not a posterboy for the 99% or whistleblowers.

He was part of the propaganda campaign that justified torture.

It started with him and continued with politicians like Cheney and pundits like Hannity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:20 PM

103. NOT a Propagandist for BUSH!

Kiriakou left the CIA in March 2004. He later served as a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as senior intelligence advisor to Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry. Kiriakou also authored a book and worked as an intelligence consultant.

Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department’s Meritorious Honor Award.

-----


CIA/Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou


http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/torture/ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou

John Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, the CIA started down the dark path of becoming a paramilitary organization, but Kiriakou did not abandon his. He refused the CIA’s offer to train him in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and Kiriakou never authorized or engaged in these techniques that constituted torture. In fact, Kiriakou wrote of torture: “There are some things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”

After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm that the agency waterboarded detainees and label waterboarding as torture. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

The government started investigating Kiriakou immediately after his media appearance. Five years later, the government finally succeeded in piecing together enough information to criminally prosecute him. He became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies, not whistleblowers.

Kiriakou became, and remains, widely viewed as an American hero who bravely served his country and blew the whistle on torture. In 2012, for example, Kiriakou was honored with the Joe A. Callaway Award for Civil Courage, an award given to individuals who advance truth and justice despite the personal risk it creates.

-Snip--

Meanwhile, countless others who have committed far graver offenses than Kiriakou have never been held accountable for their wrongdoing. For example, Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, also received a 30-month sentence for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. This leak, unlike Kiriakou’s whistleblowing disclosures, held no public value. President George W. Bush, however, commuted Libby’s sentence. Similarly, Michael Vickers revealed the name of an intelligence official to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty … yet he was never held accountable for his disclosures. And General David Petraeus leaked information to a journalist with whom he was having an affair, but was also never punished or prosecuted.

Even more troubling is the fact that CIA agents who actually engaged in torture after 9/11 have never been prosecuted, nor have the officials who condoned or ordered torture, or the attorneys who wrote memos justifying the torture. Similarly, the officials who destroyed the videotapes that provided clear evidence of torture have never been held accountable for their wrongdoing.

The Plea]/b]

On Oct. 23, 2012, in order to avoid further legal fees and to ensure that he would not face up to 45 years away from his wife and five children, Kiriakou entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty to the one IIPA charge, the prosecution agreed to a 30-month sentence and dropped all four of the remaining charges, including all of the Espionage Act charges. Kiriakou was the first person to be convicted under the IIPA in 27 years.

Kiriakou was formally sentenced on January 25, 2013 to 30 months in federal prison. Two days prior to sentencing, Kiriakou was honored by inclusion of his portrait in artist Robert Shetterly's series "Americans Who Tell the Truth," which features notable truth-tellers from American history. A short video of the Washington, DC event unveiling the portrait is embedded below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #103)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:47 PM

109. How ’07 ABC Interview Tilted a Torture Debate


By BRIAN STELTER
Published: April 27, 2009

... Mr. Zubaydah started to cooperate after being waterboarded for “probably 30, 35 seconds,” Mr. Kiriakou told the ABC reporter Brian Ross. “From that day on he answered every question.”

His claims — unverified at the time, but repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs and newspapers — have been sharply contradicted by a newly declassified Justice Department memo that said waterboarding had been used on Mr. Zubaydah “at least 83 times” ...

On Dec. 10, in the subsequent interview, Mr. Kiriakou told Mr. Ross that he believed the waterboarding was necessary in the months after the 9/11 attacks ...

Mark Danner, a journalist who has written extensively about the covert program for The New York Review of Books, said the news reports had fed the idea that brutal interrogations could instantly glean information about terrorist plans ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Kiriakou was a lying shill for rightwing torture apologists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:21 PM

104. Working with Senator Kerry was "Shilling for Neocons?"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #104)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:24 PM

106. In his initial TV interview he sold the effectiveness of waterboarding.

I now think he was more of a useful idiot than a knowing propagandist (as per additional information provided in this thread).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #68)

Sat Mar 8, 2014, 08:45 PM

72. i think this is because obama is in charge, if the same thing happened under bush

 

everyone unanimously would praise whistleblowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:14 AM

75. How true. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:28 AM

76. I agree, but how sad. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 05:20 AM

80. Kiriakou was a propagandist for Bush. People are re-writing history to make a point.

I followed this in real-time in the Bush era. Kiriakou was not a whistleblower. He was a torture apologist.

That has nothing to do with Obama.

Maybe it was wrong to send Kiriakou to prison but he is not the progressive or whistleblowing posterboy that everyone is making him out to be.

Everything does not need to be divided into two camps "Obama = bad" or "Obama = good".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #80)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:14 PM

102. Kiriakou was No Propagandist for Bush..Here's the Scoop on him--LINK:



CIA/Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou

Kiriakou left the CIA in March 2004. He later served as a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as senior intelligence advisor to Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry. Kiriakou also authored a book and worked as an intelligence consultant.

Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department’s Meritorious Honor Award.


http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/torture/ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou

John Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, the CIA started down the dark path of becoming a paramilitary organization, but Kiriakou did not abandon his. He refused the CIA’s offer to train him in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and Kiriakou never authorized or engaged in these techniques that constituted torture. In fact, Kiriakou wrote of torture: “There are some things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”

After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm that the agency waterboarded detainees and label waterboarding as torture. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

The government started investigating Kiriakou immediately after his media appearance. Five years later, the government finally succeeded in piecing together enough information to criminally prosecute him. He became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies, not whistleblowers.

Kiriakou became, and remains, widely viewed as an American hero who bravely served his country and blew the whistle on torture. In 2012, for example, Kiriakou was honored with the Joe A. Callaway Award for Civil Courage, an award given to individuals who advance truth and justice despite the personal risk it creates.

-Snip--

Meanwhile, countless others who have committed far graver offenses than Kiriakou have never been held accountable for their wrongdoing. For example, Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, also received a 30-month sentence for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. This leak, unlike Kiriakou’s whistleblowing disclosures, held no public value. President George W. Bush, however, commuted Libby’s sentence. Similarly, Michael Vickers revealed the name of an intelligence official to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty … yet he was never held accountable for his disclosures. And General David Petraeus leaked information to a journalist with whom he was having an affair, but was also never punished or prosecuted.

Even more troubling is the fact that CIA agents who actually engaged in torture after 9/11 have never been prosecuted, nor have the officials who condoned or ordered torture, or the attorneys who wrote memos justifying the torture. Similarly, the officials who destroyed the videotapes that provided clear evidence of torture have never been held accountable for their wrongdoing.

The Plea]/b]

On Oct. 23, 2012, in order to avoid further legal fees and to ensure that he would not face up to 45 years away from his wife and five children, Kiriakou entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty to the one IIPA charge, the prosecution agreed to a 30-month sentence and dropped all four of the remaining charges, including all of the Espionage Act charges. Kiriakou was the first person to be convicted under the IIPA in 27 years.

Kiriakou was formally sentenced on January 25, 2013 to 30 months in federal prison. Two days prior to sentencing, Kiriakou was honored by inclusion of his portrait in artist Robert Shetterly's series "Americans Who Tell the Truth," which features notable truth-tellers from American history. A short video of the Washington, DC event unveiling the portrait is embedded below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:23 PM

105. Thanks for the link.

His story is more complex than I imagined.

It appears that he didn't know that he was whistleblowing when he did the first TV interview because it was standard practice at that time and also common knowledge in Washington.

It also appears that he didn't know that he was giving incorrect information - in effect downplaying the negative effects of waterboarding and selling its alleged effectiveness.

So he may have been a useful idiot or a publicity seeker or a bit of both.

However, I agree that he didn't deserve the treatment he got from the various authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:29 PM

107. He changed

John Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, the CIA started down the dark path of becoming a paramilitary organization, but Kiriakou did not abandon his. He refused the CIA’s offer to train him in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and Kiriakou never authorized or engaged in these techniques that constituted torture. In fact, Kiriakou wrote of torture: “There are some things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”

...his mind in 2010.

CIA Agent Takes Back Waterboarding Claims
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-agent-takes-back-waterboarding-claims/

In 2007, he was pushing the claim that waterboarding works:

Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture

"What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack," Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 09:21 AM

87. Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove

"i think this is because obama is in charge, if the same thing happened under bush everyone unanimously would praise whistleblowers."

Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022850304

Did you support the Plame investigation?

Some people used to be against outing a CIA operative.

The thing here is that Kiriakou was bragging about the effectiveness of waterboarding. Also, it was during the Bush administration: 2007 and 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #68)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 02:49 AM

78. It doesn't amaze me at all.


There are people posting here for all sorts of interesting reasons.

As for whose side they're on, that's simple, all you have to do is read what they post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 08:28 AM

83. Imprisoning the truth tellers and protecting the criminals.

I see the professionals are here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 10:21 AM

97. yes, the Feds get mad at employees who "whistle-blow" over their heads or by-pass official channels

I don't think it's right to run to the press these days.

Of course back in the bushgang days 'whistle-blowers' on their admin. dirt or even whistle-blowers on contractor corruption were doomed.

I do think all those people who exposed bushera corruption and are now in Federal prison should be pardoned. Enough punishment.

And I do not think the (Bush era) Federal terror-laws should be used to punish people for civil crimes.

A lot of people in Federal prisons for decades did crimes that in regular society they would get probation, or just a couple years for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:34 PM

108. Oh Cali, Cali Woman! Why you be rocking de boat?

John Kiriakou was smeared and slimed by the corporate media. I hope the damage to his name can be undone. Thanks for posting this.


Rec'd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 12:56 PM

110. He was pally with the corporate media. He did friendly interviews extolling the virtues of torture.

So, the corporate media wasn't the problem in this case.

For whatever reason the FBI and CIA decided to go after him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #110)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:12 PM

111. I wasn't clear, I was talking about how the corporate media treated him after

he turned on and betrayed his masters. Sorry for being unclear. I do believe people can change, that they can see so much that their conscience can't take it anymore and I think that's what happened to him.

I haven't read this whole thread so I apologize if this is old news to you but you said "for whatever reason". Here's an explanation of those reasons

National Security Whistleblowers Honored with Callaway Award
By Mel Fabrikant Friday, October 12, 2012, 06:33 AM EDT

Today, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) applauds the recent announcement of the 2012 Joe A. Callaway Awards for Civic Courage winners by the Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest. This year’s awards recognize CIA torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, and NSA whistleblowers William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe. All three recipients are GAP clients: national security whistleblowers who stood up for constitutional rights and American values, at great risk to their personal and professional lives.

...

CIA-Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou
John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer who publicly acknowledged that waterboarding constituted torture. For this and other whistleblowing activities, Kiriakou became the sixth whistleblower to be indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – more than all previous presidential administrations combined.

Kiriakou worked at the CIA for almost 15 years in a variety of roles, including as an analyst specializing on Iraq and as a counterterrorism operative. Following the 9/11 attacks, Kiriakou was named Chief of Counterterrorism Operations in Pakistan, where he led a series of raids on al Qaeda safe houses that resulted in the capture of dozens of suspected al Qaeda fighters – including Abu Zubaydah, then thought to be al Qaeda’s third-ranking official.
In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News, during which he described his participation in the capture of Zubaydah. In the interview, Kiriakou publicly acknowledged that waterboarding constituted torture, and that torture was a policy rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. He also said that the U.S. should not engage in the practice.
Since his 2007 interview, Kiriakou has been an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush administration’s torture polices in the media and in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.
When President Obama took office in 2009, he promised that he would not prosecute any government officials who engaged in torture if they were following Justice Department guidance. Three years later, the Obama Justice Department indicted Kiriakou, who not only helped to expose the torture policy of the Bush administration but refused to engage in it. The Justice Department used the heavy-handed Espionage Act of 1917, a law meant to target spies, not whistleblowers, to target Kiriakou. Ironically, after indicting Kiriakou for his disclosure, Attorney General Eric Holder closed the investigation of government officials suspected of engaging in torture that resulted in the deaths of at least two detainees. Kiriakou's trial is scheduled for late November 2012.

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20121012063359979

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #111)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:15 PM

113. Thanks for the link. His story is more nuanced than I realized.

I have more respect him now. I didn't know the full story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #113)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 03:55 PM

116. If only we had an honest media. Thanks CJCRANE n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #113)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:07 PM

130. All the alleged "nuance" is there from the very beginning. Review the actual Brian Ross interviews

from 2007. It's just slick apologetics: even in the first interview, Kiriakou claims to be deeply troubled by torture, but his take-home message is always that the US had no time to use more sophisticated methods, that waterboarding is extremely effective, and that he'd use the same techniques again. Quite a lot of what he said turned out later to be factually incorrect. Since then, his supporters preferentially cite his statements about his discomfort with torture to claim he was whistle-blowing -- but he wasn't: he was pushing the nice folksy-sounding line: Like you, I'm not comfortable with torture, but it really works incredibly well in an emergency, and I'd do it again

BRIAN ROSS: But given that you felt that-- water-boarding and the enhanced interrogation broke him, if you -- if somebody else was caught today, wouldn't you wanna use those same techniques?
JOHN: I think that I would be very tempted to use the same techniques. I --
BRIAN ROSS: In other words, in your view, they -- they do work?
JOHN: I-- yes, they do work.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/brianross_kiriakou_transcript1_blotter071210.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/brianross_kiriakou_transcript2_blotter071210.pdf

... it's important to recall that Kiriakou's role in the media debate over torture was, in effect, to endorse the practice–albeit with some caveats.
Is John Kiriakou a Whistleblower?
By Peter Hart

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:13 PM

112. *Still* being slimed.


Lots of personas with buckets milling around...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 05:12 PM

119. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:05 AM

124. k & r! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 01:11 AM

126. Hypocrisy and the results of cognitive dissonance are the norm ...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Mar 16, 2014, 02:34 PM

138. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread