How the Pentagon Punished NSA Whistleblowers (theguardian.com) 134
10 years before Edward Snowden's leak, an earlier whistle-blower on NSA spying "was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged with crimes that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially and professionally," according to a new article in The Guardian. "The only job he could find afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban Washington, where he remains today... The supreme irony? In their zeal to punish Drake, these Pentagon officials unwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches when the 29-year-old NSA contract employee blew the whistle himself."
But today The Guardian reveals a new story about John Crane, a senior official at the Department of Defense "who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake -- until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well..." Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute whistleblower Thomas Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake's identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge...
Crane's failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations... if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)
Meanwhile, George Maschke writes: In a presentation to a group of Texas law students, a polygraph examiner for the U.S. Department of Defense revealed that in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations, the number of polygraphs conducted annually by the department tripled (to over 120,000). Morris also conceded that mental countermeasures to the polygraph are a "tough thing."
But today The Guardian reveals a new story about John Crane, a senior official at the Department of Defense "who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake -- until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well..." Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute whistleblower Thomas Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake's identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge...
Crane's failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations... if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)
Meanwhile, George Maschke writes: In a presentation to a group of Texas law students, a polygraph examiner for the U.S. Department of Defense revealed that in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations, the number of polygraphs conducted annually by the department tripled (to over 120,000). Morris also conceded that mental countermeasures to the polygraph are a "tough thing."
Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
If the assistant inspector general supervising the whistleblower unit can't figure out how to safely be a whistleblower without getting hammered, then who can? Ironically, the image of a whistleblower is that the whistle immediately alerts everyone to an issue. How's that worked out for folks [google.com]?
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has ALWAYS been this way and ALWAYS will be. You simply can't trust an organization to investigate itself or correct itself. It's a fundamental conflict of interest, isn't it? Hey bankrobber, some people tell me you've been robbing banks. Why don't you investigate yourself? OK. I just did. Nope, clean as a whistle!
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Informative)
It still saddens me deeply that a majority of people assume that it's only the governments of OTHER countries that are doing horrible, horrible things. I want to take everyone who has ever said "No, the U.S. government would never do something like that" and put them in a room and force them to watch documentaries on the CIA and all the horrific shit they did, and are still doing, in South America and many other regions. And they did it all with our tax money. And they're STILL DOING IT, right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, many non-Americans are in denial about what THEIR governments are doing too.
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Informative)
How did the agencies get that way ?
The most likely answer, is Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. [jerrypournelle.com]
To wit:
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. The FBI has been a corrupt organization from the top (J. E. Hoover) on down, but because they were breaking the law for a "good cause" [wikipedia.org], they were allowed to get away with it by both Democrat and Republican administrations. It wasn't until the release of the COINTEL papers [wikipedia.org] and the fact that Nixon was in office, that Congress suddenly grew a spine, and investigated the FBI under the Church committee. But it never would have happened without the "illegal" release of the FBI's wrong doing.
As a follow-on, the FBI claims to have stopped the illegal COINTEL operations, but Parallel Construction [wikipedia.org] leads me to believe it still goes on, under another name.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
because they were breaking the law for a "good cause" [wikipedia.org], they were allowed to get away with it by both Democrat and Republican administrations
No, they got away with it because Hoover and his minions had dirt on every president since Calvin Coolidge. JFK and RFK despised him, but they didn't dare make a move against him.
-jcr
So did the press and they sat on that information. Truth is that the powers that be valued the dirt that Hoover could dig up more than they cared about the dirt he had on them. Not saying that it wasn't partly defensive, but Hoover stayed in power because he helped those in power.
Just as today those in power care much more about the information that the NSA and FBI can provide than they care about whether it was obtained legally.
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
But bringing up the police gets people with all sorts of unrelated opinions to latch onto unrelated items. So to avoid problems with that, you might as well use robbers, or the mob as an example of self-policing.
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA, CIA, and FBI aren't intended to be criminal organizations. They were built to help the people of the US. The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist.
I really wish people would stop using this expression.
Have you ever left a bad apple in a bunch of apples? If you had, you'd know exactly what happens: the whole bunch turns bad very quickly. That's where the expression came from, and that's why it's invalid to say "only a few bad apples": there is no such thing as a few bad apples!!! When you have a bad apple, whether it's an apple or a cop in a police department, unless it's removed quickly, pretty soon they're all bad. Which is why the expression is apt for police, except that everyone keeps forgetting about what really happens with bad apples. Does no one keep bunches of apples any more?
Re: (Score:2)
tbf the original saying, as I heard it was "One rotten apple will spoil the entire barrel".
Paraphrasing is like playing a game of chinese whispers with a group of beat poets.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apples bushel together, grapes and bananas bunch.
A bushel is a unit of volume. A 'bushel of apples' refers to a box of picked apples. The olde timey phrase refers to a 'barrel of apples,' because that's how they were stored and shipped. A bunch of grapes refers to be biological growth of grapes in clusters. Bananas also grow in biological clusters, but those clusters are called 'hands.'
In any case, the spoilage of apples really only happens after they're picked and stored together, especially in an airtight space where the ethylene can concentrate.
Re: (Score:2)
You replied to the wrong person.
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the fact that it doesn't. There are plenty of "honorable" people that believe the ends justify the means, and I believe that's largely what we have here. Too many people think that peoples' safety is more important than their freedom, and it's acceptable to break the law "if it saves the life of just one child".
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Interesting)
>They were built to help the people of the US.
The trouble is that it is very easy for good ideas to get turned to nefarious purposes, and this is doubly true of wartime ideas when peace comes. The CIA was born out of the wartime OSS. Not so very long after that, JFK disbanded the CIA as he recognized the threat of having such an organisation outside of the war. During the war the enemy was clear, the need was clear -and the risks of what would happen if they failed kept them focused on the right stuff. Outside the war - the combination of power and secrecy was a deadly threat.
Of course, in one of his very first acts in office, LBJ undid that and reinstated the CIA. This bit of history is revealing - and it's part of the reason why JFK's death has been the subject of so many conspiracy theories, there were just too many people who stood to lose power and privilege as a result of him disbanding the CIA. I don't know if there's any truth to any of them (real conspiracies do happen after all, but most conspiracy theories are bullshit) but I can see how this confluence of events would inspire suspicions.
Either way - JFK's reasoning for disbanding the CIA was solid. There was no reason for the CIA to exist in peacetime - even with the cold war ongoing. The same could be said of the NSA.
The FBI, not being military was a lesser threat and I would argue has actually improved over time. Hoover's FBI had files on *everybody* today's FBI is a lot more restrained. You could argue it should be even moreso, or maybe even that it should not exist, but it's the one case where the trend seems to have been towards greater transparency and less intrusive behavior - perhaps because the FBI's very mandate is to deal with citizens, they operate more in the public eye and under public scrutiny. Their targets also get a day in court where flagrant 4th amendment violations are case-losers. Instead, you see a different kind of corruption there - like FBI lab-techs flagrantly lying to courts over the strength of DNA evidence for example.
In all cases, government organisations ought to be kept tightly focused and face real and serious repercussions for bad behavior, in some cases (like a wartime intelligence operation) these can come from circumstances, in the rest it must be written into legislation... and some of them should never exist.
I wonder sometimes, how much better a country the USA would not be, if defense budget was cut to 1/6th of what it is (which would still be 3 times bigger than any other country) - and that money spent instead on scientific research and the social safety net (which in total amounts to less than 0.05% percent of government spending yet we are constantly told is unaffordable).
Re: (Score:1)
when the revolution comes (and yes, its coming, no doubt about it; just don't know WHEN) these assholes will be up against the wall.
I would buy a ticket to such an event, btw.
these guys are evil fucking traitors and they will deserve any crowd justice that happens, when all hell finally breaks loose.
and yes, I am pretty sure hell will break loose, as we see no sign of any reform or change in how our government does 'business'.
I can see why they are afraid of the internet. it weakens them. it exposes them.
Re:Who will watch the watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
> when the revolution comes (and yes, its coming, no doubt about it; just don't know WHEN) these assholes will be up against the wall.
I would buy a ticket to such an event, btw.
> I hope we can change before the mob justice stuff happens. I don't really want to be around when the shit hits the fan. it won't be fun for anyone.
If you've ever wondered why people don't take you seriously ...
Re: (Score:2)
lovely attack on my comments. but you are pretty much off-base.
yes, I'd enjoy seeing the criminals that run out government be subject to the whims of the crowd.
and that's not at all incompatible with not wanting to be in the mob's way, once that part is done and they go on a rampage of anger and violence.
perhaps you have reading comprehension issues or you are just having a bad day. if you get your fun attacking me, well, I guess that speaks to your character.
or perhaps you have other agendas you are try
Re: (Score:3)
He was pointing out that in the same comment you say you would like to be at such an event and then that you wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
but there are two 'events':
1) punishment for the criminals by a mob
2) mob vengence upon society and riots upon the general population.
I'm all for the first one. and I'm not excited about BEING there for the 2nd one.
#1 is justice. #2 is people needing revenge. #1 would be only dangerous to those who were part of the controlling elite. #2 would be dangerous to everyone in their path.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure that a lot of French and Russian people thought that "mob "justice"" wouldn't be dangerous to them, but that didn't really turn out to be the case. See: French Revolution (1789), Russian Revolution (1917).
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:2)
There was no Russian revolution (1917), there were the February revolution and the October revolution. And at least the first one was absolutely overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Russian Revolution" is the collective term for a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the eventual rise of the Soviet Union. -- Russian Revolution [wikipedia.org]
1917 Russian Revolution [local-life.com]
Russian Revolution of 1917 [britannica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am into patience and traps. Tweaking and adjusting the system, leading the establishment by it's nose until it drives itself into traps. Piece by piece, no rush, a lot of bad steps to get here and a lot of good steps required to get back. Look at the US democrat campaign, forcing the establishment into error after, error exposing more and more corruption, enabling each piece of it to be tackled and eliminated one by one. So it goes for the rest, forcing errors, exposing crime, working together, providing
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:1)
And we realize that anarchists like you are the greatest threat to freedom in the US and worldwide. You'd destroy civilization to watch it all burn, and then go off with doe. Feel good bullshit that we've seen destroy societies a dozen times in the last 20 years. Go fuck yourself.
Re: Who will watch the watchers? (Score:1)
Do it? Dan, I'm not a Republic Serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.
Nothing they did mattered. Nothing has changed. Our mistake? Letting Nixon go. Ford should have been impeached for his pardon. It took barely another term of office before another scandal that should have rocked the country. It was a blip. Then another. And another.
I swear, Donald Trump could get elec
Re: (Score:1)
But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...
The original issues that were the subject of actual whistle blowing were settled long ago. The "Trailblzer" program was defunded. FTA -
In line with standard procedure, these investigative findings were relayed to the House and Senate committees overseeing the NSA – and this helped nudge Congress to end funding for the Trailblazer programme.
The 4th Amendment issues have been addressed in various ways as well, although perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction. The problem there is that it is there are a number of different issues with each having their own scope and history of jurisprudence. Not everyone likes where things have ended up even if it is legal. There is potential for more conflict over that since
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds very much like the typical scapegoat technique. Find a few heads, doesn't really matter too much who they are, and let them roll. Make sure this it publicized widely and touted as a big cleansing.
It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.
As to the rest of your post I agree that it is unfortunate, and probably not the only post you've made that I would find unfortunate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.
I think the point of this story is that you will never know which ones really broke the law. You will only have a good story about laws broken, and people within the organization can manipulate the release of information in order to assure that they choose the identity of the criminals. Treasonous spies within the organization who leak state secrets and endanger the lives of committed service men and women overseas. People like John Crane and Thomas Drake.
Maybe, with electronic distribution of vast data
Re:Who will watch the watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Official investigations are quietly under way
The keyword there is quietly. Condemnation of critics is loud. Affirmation of critics is quiet.
Not to mention astroturfing their propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
When TPTB strikes, they make sure they cover everything
Not only they throw the book on the whistleblowers, they also make sure that those patriotic whistleblowers get their reputation totally ruined by releasing their 'wu mao' teams astroturfing their propaganda at online forum, such as this one on /. calling the whistleblowers 'traitors' and such
What TPTB of the United States of America is doing is getting closer and closer to that of the Chinese Communist regime
I came from China, I know how terrible fascism is, and unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happens here, more and more
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S government is CORRUPT and VIOLENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
"I came from China, I know how terrible fascism is, and unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happens here, more and more"
The U.S. government has killed an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. Often contractor companies do the violence, or arrange more violence so that they can make more money and so the managers can get promotions. It's killing for profit.
Why the Vietnam war? The CIA and Vietnam [nybooks.com]. "... from June, 1954 to June, 1963, that is, until two years after Dulles left office (August, 1961) the CIA was absolutely and exclusively dominant in creating and carrying out the policies which led eventually to the Vietnam War."
"To the CIA too must go the credit for the creation of the secret police forces of Diemâ(TM)s brother Ngo Dinh Nhu which prevented dissent within Vietnam until it was too late to change things."
The intention of the U.S. financial community to profit from corrupt practices was well known long before the crash in 2008. In the Berkshire Hathaway 2002 Annual Report [berkshirehathaway.com] (PDF), Warren Buffett said this on page 14: "I can assure you that the marking errors in the derivatives business have not been symmetrical. Almost invariably, they have favored either the trader who was eyeing a multi-million dollar bonus or the CEO who wanted to report impressive 'earnings' (or both). The bonuses were paid, and the CEO profited from his options. Only much later did shareholders learn that the reported earnings were a sham."
The Iraq war made huge amounts of money for the Bush family and Dick Cheney: Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War [readersupportednews.org]. That destruction will continue for decades: The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End [amazon.com].
They brought Snowden on themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what a lot of people don't get. Snowden had only two real choices: Go outside the system to reveal injustice, or keep his mouth shut.
The whole whistle-blower problem was brought to our attention decades ago. The powers that be promised "whistle blower protection". Some people accepted that... and still got screwed.
Snowden had to have know the history of all that. He knew he had two choices. Be a mobster, or turn "states evidence" to the only state that won't screw him: The public at large.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. Snowden was not an employee he had no "whistle blower protection".
Re: (Score:1)
Why dont contractors get that protection then? Whats that, its a backdoor to keep their dirty secrets dirty and its not right so we shouldnt defend it?
Glad you see things my way.
Re: 1% illuminati triangle craft (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the problem:
A two-person election in November, Hillary will almost certainly win. Indeed, if history is anything to go by - it will be a massive landslide - every time Republicans have nominated an angry demagogue like Trump in the past the democrats got a landslide victory (see Barry Goldwater for example).
But if it's a three person election - then Trump may very well win, regardless who the third person is. Lets say Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. While he lost on maths, the man got a LOT of votes, and even in the states where lost his margins were narrow. One could easily see him taking several states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary, and just one or two states could make all the difference. I would prefer Bernie over Hillary but right now I hope he drops out after the convention - because if he runs then Trump wins.
Now what if say Kassich or Rubio runs ? You know, classic establishment republicans ? Well the landslide is definitely off the the table - since a lot of the independents who will gladly choose Hillary over Trump would not choose either over Kassich or Rubio. That would take votes from both of them - and the maths will get very complicated. It's unlikely this mainstream republican candidate could win but which of the other two does is suddenly a gamble, and Trump's odds look a lot better.
Okay, what if we one of the republican crazies ran ? Cruz or Paul maybe ? Well the trouble with those guys are - they always only appealed to the same brand of wingnuts that Trump drew... and he is better at it than they are. But a lot of independents will, yet again, choose their brand of crazy over Hillary - and that may be enough to give Trump a victory.
That's the problem right now - you got the republicans having gone full retard and nominated a man whose speeches are identical to those of fascist leaders and nazi's through the ages - but the democrats responded by nominating the woman with the worst unfavorables in years. Trump is probably the only candidate in history so terrible that Hillary could beat him (I don't think she could have won against either McCain or Romney... well maybe McCain if he had kept Palin). But that ability to beat him utterly depends on a two-candidate race. Any third candidate who splits the vote and the orangutang son of the NAZI gets the nuclear launch codes.
This pattern has been prevalent for a while. Quite a few candidates have lost because a third-party got just enough votes they would otherwise have gotten to cost them a win (Gore for example). But I think this is the most stark example ever.
So the question is, how badly do you NOT want a world where Goldwater won ? Can you imagine if that froth at the mouth lunatic had been president during the Bay of Pigs ? When the world was on the verge of a nuclear war, most of the credit for it not happening came down to a president who managed to keep his cool. JFK earned respect that day. Trump is the goldwater of our generation and make no mistake, there will be Bay of Pigs like events in the next 8 years, there always is... when they come, you need somebody making the calls who is known for acting calmly and keeping his cool and making careful, calculated decisions. You do not want an angry demagogue who never thinks before he speaks, let alone acts.
Voting for third parties (Score:3)
But if it's a three person election - then Trump may very well win, regardless who the third person is. Lets say Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. While he lost on maths, the man got a LOT of votes, and even in the states where lost his margins were narrow. One could easily see him taking several states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary, and just one or two states could make all the difference. I would prefer Bernie over Hillary but right now I hope he drops out after the convention - because if he runs then Trump wins.
But would it be better to suffer four years under Trump, and then get a Democratic candidate that was closer to Sanders than Clinton? This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long te
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary will almost certainly win
I'll see your manpig and raise you an angry mullet.
Cthulhu 2016, why vote for the lesser of 2 evils? (Score:2)
Given the dismal approval ratings for both Trump and Clinton, a serious 3rd party is now a possibility. As a Libertarian leaning constitutional conservative, I have an innate distrust of the BIG THREE big Government, big business and big religion. If the Tea party didn't have the Evangelicals buried so far up their asses, they might turn into a real political party that I could support. On the other hand since Trump is 69 and Hildebeast is 68 and they are running for a job that turns calender years into do
Would be nice if it shut up the snark (Score:5, Insightful)
...but I have few hopes it will. It would be nice if those who utter all that stuff about:
* "real heroes don't run away to hide behind foreign powers"
* "he's a coward for not standing on his rights and facing justice"
* "he should have worked through the system and not broken the law, he's a criminal" ...would now shut up and even apologize. When the entity you are blowing the whistle on, itself breaks the law - fraudulently and unlawfully uses the colour of authority to protect itself from embarrassment rather than serving the public trust - then you can no longer depend on the justice system. They have more access to its levers than the whistleblower, so the justice system is not neutral, not blind, in his case.
They are captured, in effect, by the prestige of the institution, and the numbers. What is the court supposed to believe about a complex internal matter, the one whistleblower, or the Secretary, three Undersecretaries, four generals and five lawyers, all insisting that you are a crazed, grudge-bearing criminal?
Nothing prevents a large bureaucracy from abusing the simple fact that courts trust them, except the bureaucracy's own members' obedience to the law and fear of eventual exposure. That works, mostly, for the local Roads department, or even the State environmental department. With the NSA, it will never, ever happen; the NSA brass need fear no exposure, ever. Clapper's brazen perjury before Congress (without consequences) is proof that Snowden had to run.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Clapper's brazen perjury before Congress..."
Except that it wasn't perjury. As a matter of course, high-ranking officials are not sworn in when testifying before Congress because -I shit you not- forcing them to open themselves up to perjury charges would "impugn their honor and integrity". #workingasintendedimsure
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any references or citations for that? I tried to search the quoted phrase, but nothing relevant comes up.
Re:Would be nice if it shut up the snark (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Had Snowden stayed and tried to "work through the system," nobody would have ever heard of him or of the revelations he brought to light. He would have been hushed up and then arrested on some trumped up charges. This would not only scare off other whistle blowers, but would seed doubt in the minds of anyone who actually did hear what he had to say.
Snowden gave up his life in America along with any chance to see his family and friends ever again. (He shouldn't believe any claims of getting a "fair trial.") He risked being captured and imprisoned for life. All so he could tell the world about the NSA's illegal spying program. He's a hero in my book.
Re:Would be nice if it shut up the snark (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have many heros.
but I would count snowden as one.
I hope the youth, today, grows up and thinks the same thing. it would be horrible if the authoritarian spin gets planted in the next generation's minds.
a free internet will prevent that. oh right, this IS the issue; we are at risk of losing the free part (freedom) of the internet. it may very well be that we go all 1984 on ourselves and head down a darker path instead of fixing the problems.
it could go either way. that's the scary part.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry bub. But if you want a shred of credibility on NSA whistleblowing... or anything, really... you might try citing someone who's not a fox "news" propagandist and former George Bush staffer writing for a far-right-wing "think tank" that plays host to the ilk of Dick Cheney, Paul Ryan, and John Yoo.
Re: (Score:1)
I see a list of people and sources that you don't like, but I don't see you provide any evidence whatsoever that anything in the post is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Give us one example, you lying, bootlicking piece of shit.
-jcr
I'll take pity on you and give you two sources:
From the article (which you apparently didn't read):
Crane filed a complaint against Shelley and Halbrooks, detailing many more alleged misdeeds than reported in this article. The Office of Special Counsel, the US agency charged with investigating such matters, concluded in March of 2016 that there was a “substantial likelihood” that Crane’s accusations were well-founded. The OSC’s choice of the term “substantial likelihood” was telling. It could have ruled there was merely a “reasonable belief” Crane’s charges were true, in which case no further action would have been required. By finding instead that there was a “substantial likelihood”, the OSC triggered a process that legally required secretary of defense Ashton Carter to organise a fresh investigation of Crane’s allegations. Because no federal agency is allowed to investigate itself, that inquiry is being conducted by the Justice Department.
and ...
Probe launched into Pentagon handling of NSA whistleblower evidence [mcclatchydc.com]
One other thing: Lazy, ignorant, and foul-mouthed is no way to go through life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the world outside your head, real investigations and prosecutions take time after a complaint has been filed, as opposed to imaginary investigations or poo flinging.
You seem to have a shoe or boot fetish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"people high up in the DOD and DOD IG suspected of criminal misconduct ... are under investigation and stand a good chance of going to jail?"
LOL. No high ranking government officials are going to jail. As usual, the government will investigate itself and come to the conclusion that government did nothing wrong.
Wyden's motives in questioning Clapper are entirely irrelevant. The whole point of questioning someone in such a hearing is so that the information is on record. It doesn't matter if Wyden knew th
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as a special kind of moral stupidity mixed with evil. It is a general marker for bad character, bad judgment, and often an inability to accept responsibility.
I'm beginning the think that a pro-Semite is all of those things! They certainly seem to be like the child abuse victim that grows up to abuse their own children.
Keep in mind the context (Score:1)
This is 10 years ago. 2006. It's 5 or less years after the 911 attacks.
Honestly, he got off easy. It doesn't pay the be the early bird whistle blower during a zealous military reaction from the US citizens AND the government.
You guys have to face some realities here. Back in 2005 you could probably get 50% of people to agree that mass phone record collection to fight terrorist was necessary.
Another hard truth is that the NSA overreach didn't actually do a lot of real life harm. It's nothing like reporting w
But a prominent civil liberties expert disapproves (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy is not a "civil liberties expert". Well, maybe he is, in a sense of how you work around them...
We're here my fellow Earthlings. (Score:2)
The corrupt are in all the institutions of power and influence. $ is worshiped above all else. Violence will near certainly be required to prevent global totalitarian rule by the Simon Bar Sinisters of the world. Most of you will love the velvet glove covering the steel hand that directs your lives from here out. Most of you will be happy to get your "mark" for the convenience, and look at those without one as a security risk. Almost nothing said by governments is to be believed. At this point it appears to
Re: (Score:2)
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord."
holy scriptures are funny to read.
(and yes, I do speak e
The REAL "criminal" here (Score:5, Informative)
The outcome (Score:3)
" if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)"
And the official investigations will be quietly covered up.
Re: (Score:1)
Obama's justice department never prosecutes senior members of his administration for criminal conduct. The only solution is to put Obama himself in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
>Obama's justice department never prosecutes senior members of his administration for criminal conduct
Except that nobody in this article is a senior member of his administration, in fact none of them are or were members of his administration at all. These events all occurred during the Bush years and these were senior members of Dubya's administration, not Obama's. A few of them were still employed there into the first year or two of Obama's first term but they all move along long ago. Halbrooks for exam
Re: (Score:3)
Except that nobody in this article is a senior member of his administration, in fact none of them are or were members of his administration at all. These events all occurred during the Bush years and these were senior members of Dubya's administration, not Obama's.
We are talking about events that happened circa 2006, ten years ago, long before Obama under Bush and Cheney.
Shhhhhhhhh, stop using facts to fuck up his "Blame Obama" narrative.
Re: (Score:1)
Polygraphs? Really?? (Score:2)
Sweet Jesus, why don't they just get in a voodoo doctor to throw a few bones and cast a truth-spell?
Is no-one at all concerned that the world's supposed technological leader has a military who believe in such bullshit? And everyone was amazed when other countries were found purchasing bogus explosive detectors. This is equally money spent on a fraud that does not do what it claims to do.
Re: (Score:1)
No farting in the new world order!
Re: (Score:1)