Glenn Greenwald: What the Whistleblower Prosecution Says About the Obama DOJ

The more I think and read about the Obama DOJ's prosecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, the more I think this might actually be one of the worst steps the Obama administration has taken yet, if not the single worst step -- and that's obviously saying a lot. During the Bush years, in the wake of the NSA scandal, I used to write post after post about how warped and dangerous it was that the Bush DOJ was protecting the people who criminally spied on Americans (Bush, Cheney Michael Hayden) while simultaneously threatening to prosecute the whistle-blowers who exposed misconduct. But the Bush DOJ never actually followed through on those menacing threats; no NSA whistle-blowers were indicted during Bush's term (though several were threatened). It took the election of Barack Obama for that to happen, as his handpicked Assistant Attorney General publicly boasted yesterday of the indictment against Drake.

Aside from the indefensible fact that only crimes committed by high-level Bush officials -- but nobody else -- enjoy the benefits of Obama's "Look Forward, Not Backward" decree, think about the interests being served by this prosecution. Most discussions yesterday suggested that Drake's leaks to The Baltimore Sun's Sibohan Gorman were about waste and mismanagement in the "Trailblazer" project rather than controversial NSA spying activities, but that's not entirely accurate.

Just consider this May 18, 2006, article by Gorman, describing how and why the NSA opted for the "Trailblazer" proposal over the privacy-protecting "Thin Thread" program, in the process discarding key privacy protections designed to ensure that the NSA would not eavesdrop on the domestic calls of U.S. citizens (h/t ondelette). In that article -- which really should be read to get a sense for the whistle-blowing that is being punished by the DOJ -- Gorman described at length how then-NSA head Michael Hayden rejected technologies that could "rapidly separate and encrypt U.S.-related communications to ensure privacy" and "that monitored potential abuse of the records." As she put it: "Once President Bush gave the go-ahead for the NSA to secretly gather and analyze domestic phone records -- an authorization that carried no stipulations about identity protection -- agency officials regarded the encryption as an unnecessary step and rejected it."

It's not hyperbole to say that Bush's decision to use the NSA to spy domestically on American citizens was one of the most significant stories of this generation. It was long recognized that turning the NSA inward was one of the greatest dangers to freedom, as Sen. Frank Church warned back in 1975, after he investigated America's secret surveillance apparatus: "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide." It was, of course, the December 16, 2005, New York Times article by Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau which first disclosed that the Bush NSA was illegally eavesdropping on American citizens inside the U.S., but Gorman's articles regarding the Trailblazer program -- in the time period covered by the indictment, using NSA sources (almost certainly including Drake) -- provided crucial details about how and why the Bush NSA dispensed with key safeguards to protect innocent Americans from such invasive domestic surveillance.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/16-3

go????????

This is the shit we spent 8 years fighting and yet there are some here that will do everything in their power to hide the truth or to smear anyone who tells the damn truth..

Just who the hell are we now??????? And what do we really stand for ..I just don't know anymore..but I sure as hell know..I will not give up my democratic values or principles..not for anyone..but moreover..I will not give up my national values and principles..not for any party or for anyone!

See the people trying their damnest to hide the truth!

see the replies to my posts here but be sure to read all the replies:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8155486&mesg_id=8158224


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=270461&mesg_id=270485


seems some people here at DU are working over time to hide truth..I just wonder who they are working for!!

And to be frank (an aside from my orig post) lately I find myself thinking this is a lost cause as I can source any number of these type of threads and they sink like stones ... even most of the other lefties here won't bother showing any display of solidarity in them, despite my doing the same for many of their threads. Yes, I realize that perhaps that seems irrelevant, but within a struggle of ideas/views, especially when the party has very much so shifted rightward, even symbolic displays of unity are important...

The place is hardly democratic anymore.

The greatest page should show the posts that get the most votes period. This would get the controversial topics up for discussion. The intent seems to be to stifle any controversy. Plain vanilla is great, a whole lot of people like vanilla but only a few will claim it as their favorite flavor.

new democrats my ass..I have been a democrat for 38 years , all of my adult life..I do not know this democratic party..they are not democratic to me..my values haven't changed..but what i am seeing sure as hell has changed!

Isee the same kind of postings we all saw with the Bushbots..but now it is coming from my own party.

Well I didn't leave my party..my party is leaving me.

Now we get called a freeper if we post thetruth..I am way over disgusted.

Of course, had the Bush administration been behaving this way- there'd a be a unanimous hue and cry about the prosecution.

My take on it is that a lot of people lack any real principles of their own- but simply adopt whatever their "tribe" says is "good" at the time.

Keep posting, this is important work that is being done, and it needs to be seen and addressed. It may feel like you are screaming into the wind here, especially, lately, but some of us are hearing you. :hi:

the irony...

Obama is mostly motivated by his desire to protect and shore-up the powers that be.

Law "enforcement" is arbitrary and usually applies to the common folk, not those with powers.

is the NSA failure to listen to al Qaeda operatives inside the US.



I don't know why citizens are expected to give government officials the benefit of the doubt. The standard line after 9/11 was that the intelligence community didn't have enough power to prevent terrorist attacks. There was too much red tape. Too many laws. Too much oversight. It appears that this rationale is complete bullshit.

the White House.
Dick Cheney hated Frank Church and "Anything Goes" became their policy.
And so they got out all of their wish lists and everything they wanted to do for the last 35 years, and they started implementing them right off of the bat.

Who was going to stop them?
They had the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the CIA and the FBI to back their actions in case any whistleblowers showed up.

They outed an undercover covert CIA officer, for Christ's sake!!
And in the same breath, called themselves patriots, and gave each other Medals of Freedom.

What happened to Valerie Plame will NOT go away.
Not even if Obama wants to wave his magic fucking wand and try to make it go away.