Disclosing highly secret government actions to compromise Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons certainly seems like an offense that merits punishment. This isn't some simple whistle-blower revealing incompetence or illegal activities by the government against its own citizens.
Obviously, however, the U.S. Justice Department has been rather selective about prosecuting people for actions concerning highly secretive programs. It's always the little guys, never someone like Michael Hayden.
Obviously, however, the U.S. Justice Department has been rather selective about prosecuting people for actions concerning highly secretive programs. It's always the little guys, never someone like Michael Hayden.
1
The words prosecutor and circumstantial evidence used in conjunction with a conviction makes me shudder. Every week we have more and more people released from prison who were wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence. If prosecutors are going to convict anyone of espionage then it should required more than circumstantial evidence or we are playing out the Rosenberg's all over again.
2
This guy should get a medal from all Americans.He dislcosed Malfeasance By the managers running this program .This is how incompetence in government is squelched.
1
"Just and appropriate outcome," Mr. Holder. We haven't seen you pursue just and appropriate outcomes for your entire term.
Circumstantial evidence=decades in prison? What a travesty.
Is passing along classified information a crime? Yes. Is exposing the secret(s) by publishing them a crime? It sure is. How many times has the NY Times exposed secret govt programs, to the detriment of the US?
When will Holder go on trial for inciting race riots in Ferguson?
Circumstantial evidence=decades in prison? What a travesty.
Is passing along classified information a crime? Yes. Is exposing the secret(s) by publishing them a crime? It sure is. How many times has the NY Times exposed secret govt programs, to the detriment of the US?
When will Holder go on trial for inciting race riots in Ferguson?
1
What Mr. Sterling did has a direct correlation to how media can contribute to our lives in both negative ways and positive ways. What really bothered me about this article was how it was stated that there was no direct proof but the Justice Department "stitched together a strong circumstantial case". Due to media and technology, the Justice Department was able to contract a case that otherwise would not have been able to be made. They were able to connect Mr. Sterling with Mr. Risen by showing that they had talked frequently via telephone records and emails. By using the media and technology, the case was able to prove that Mr. Sterling had the information, the motive, and the opportunity to leak this information.
I cannot believe that our justice system could allow a case to be held in such a way with lack of substantial evidence. As Mr. Sterling's lawyer stated, "The government has great lawyers. It has a great theory. It just made a great argument. What the government lacks is evidence." The reason I think this is such a serious quote to look at is because clearly the government doesn't have NOTHING. They may not have as much as they would like, but putting those words and calls out into the media and the internet are what, in turn, screwed over Mr. Sterling. It's a very big eye opener.
I cannot believe that our justice system could allow a case to be held in such a way with lack of substantial evidence. As Mr. Sterling's lawyer stated, "The government has great lawyers. It has a great theory. It just made a great argument. What the government lacks is evidence." The reason I think this is such a serious quote to look at is because clearly the government doesn't have NOTHING. They may not have as much as they would like, but putting those words and calls out into the media and the internet are what, in turn, screwed over Mr. Sterling. It's a very big eye opener.
1
It would be interesting to know the truth behind Holder's reversal in the matter of Risen.
1
If Mr. Sterling is speaking the whole truth, then he is going to be another innocent man being sent to prison for a crime which he did not commit. According to the NYTimes article, Mr. Sterling "faces a maximum possible sentence of decades in prison . . . ."
On the other hand, James Risen and the NYTimes appealed all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court to prevent him from going to jail. And, the very worst part of all may be that a man who knows for certain that Mr. Sterling is not guilty will not speak the truth. That man is James Risen, reporter for the NYTimes.
On the other hand, James Risen and the NYTimes appealed all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court to prevent him from going to jail. And, the very worst part of all may be that a man who knows for certain that Mr. Sterling is not guilty will not speak the truth. That man is James Risen, reporter for the NYTimes.
4
No one can ignore with impunity laws with which they disagree. Mr. Sterling knowingly violated the law. He must pay the price. There is a way in a democracy to change ill-conceived laws. Despite all the hand-wringing, most of the electorate and most of our elected officials think that our secrecy laws do more good than harm. To those complain that Mr. Sterling was convicted on merely "circumstantial" evidence, he could have called Mr. Risen as a witness to explain that Mr. Sterling never revealed classified information to him. But for some reason, the defense did not want testimony on that subject from Mr. Risen.
2
In his state of the union address, President Obama proudly noted that he'd ended torture. So why is the man who brought torture to public attention, John Kiriakou, still in prison? Why has he not been pardoned, his status restored?
Truth-telling is punished by the Obama administration, as exemplified by John Kiriakou, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden.
Liars are rewarded: James Clapper, who lied to Congress, still heads the NSA; John Brennan, who lied to Congress, continues at head of the CIA; James Comey still heads the FBI. Lying Michael Hayden is free.
What does it say about a society that the honest public servants, the real heroes, are either in prison, have been stripped of their status, or have been forced to become fugitives?
Truth-telling is punished by the Obama administration, as exemplified by John Kiriakou, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden.
Liars are rewarded: James Clapper, who lied to Congress, still heads the NSA; John Brennan, who lied to Congress, continues at head of the CIA; James Comey still heads the FBI. Lying Michael Hayden is free.
What does it say about a society that the honest public servants, the real heroes, are either in prison, have been stripped of their status, or have been forced to become fugitives?
4
This appears to be a just verdict, and I hope the judge throws the book at Sterling. He leaked damaging information about an alleged operation that was fully within the scope of the CIA's mission and charter against a foreign adversary that threatens US national security. There's not a whiff of whistle-blowing or the exposure of state-sanctioned illegal activity. He betrayed the nation's trust, and for that he deserves a harsh sentence. Some folks might not like the tools Obama (in this case) used to conduct national security strategy, but that's not the issue here. Put him away, for a long time
3
Obama's administration has used secrecy and threats of job termination or criminal prosecution to shut out information about fraud, waste and abuse in the govt. In addition to the "get-tough" policy on leaks to media, we also had and probably have the Dept of Homeland Security especially the Federal Emergency Mgm Agency staff being threatened with termination for sharing any information with outsiders even former FEMA employees. I also know that FEMA legal division was not above retaliation for those who spoke out about waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars.
2
Having served for 24 months in 70 sessions as Deputy Foreperson for a Federal Criminal Grand Jury, I no longer trust my government. I cannot disclose any deliberations, but our record is public, and I can say that whenever a certain topic was brought up in secret session behind locked doors, my personal computer would be hacked at home. I got the message.
I was hoping Obama would bring in an honest team, but perhaps the rot goes too deep.
I was hoping Obama would bring in an honest team, but perhaps the rot goes too deep.
5
The CIA should be thoroughly restructured. It has not been as successful as we pay them to be. Remember Iraq? Or their behavior outside of the U.S., unprofessional and puerile?
The CIA has committed a series of missteps, more importantly misconduct and abuse. What really goes on and who is really in charge?
Do American citizens fund this agency or not?
The CIA has committed a series of missteps, more importantly misconduct and abuse. What really goes on and who is really in charge?
Do American citizens fund this agency or not?
4
The case is much ado about nothing. It simply
proved the hypocrisy of Obama Administration
promising transparency and practicing utmost
secrecy. It is naive to think that Iran doesn't know
that USA/Israel are trying hard to sabotage their
nuclear program. If Mr. Stirling really wanted to harm
the security he could have given information to Iranians
directly. At one time, Javed Zaif, current negotiator
with P5+1, was Iran's ambassador at UN in NY.
The case of Stuxnet malware to damage centrifuges
is well known and so is the assassination of some
Iranian scientists. Iran didn't really need more information
to understand that some countries are trying to set their
program back. It looks like CIA's retaliation in response
to Mr. Stirling filing a case against CIA.
proved the hypocrisy of Obama Administration
promising transparency and practicing utmost
secrecy. It is naive to think that Iran doesn't know
that USA/Israel are trying hard to sabotage their
nuclear program. If Mr. Stirling really wanted to harm
the security he could have given information to Iranians
directly. At one time, Javed Zaif, current negotiator
with P5+1, was Iran's ambassador at UN in NY.
The case of Stuxnet malware to damage centrifuges
is well known and so is the assassination of some
Iranian scientists. Iran didn't really need more information
to understand that some countries are trying to set their
program back. It looks like CIA's retaliation in response
to Mr. Stirling filing a case against CIA.
3
Many of those commenting praise Mr. Sterling for telling Americans the truth. But the fact of the matter is that most Americans have not undergone the intense security clearance investigation to know the “truth.” They are unfit to know because of past actions and behaviors that might make them vulnerable to blackmail by foreign agents bent on destroying America. Mr. Sterling had gone through that scrutiny, determined to a trustworthy man, and signed a confidentiality agreement not to disclose classified information to unauthorized individuals. Yet, he violated that agreement; he violated a compact with the American people to protect the secrets; he violated the nation’s trust.
5
Why is this man leaving the court house? Convicted of espionage and not in custody? I must be kind of dense because I don't understand.
4
Risen should be Sterling's cellmate. He possesses no special exemption to break the law nor does he have special exemption from testifying is subpoenaed. The NYT didn't publish the story in this case, but Risen saw fit to quite literally profit by including the revelations in his book. Risen is a criminal and belongs behind bars.
3
I find the NYTimes article to be a bit confusing.
One sentence reads: "They [the Justice Department and C.I.A.] said that the Iran operation had not been mismanaged . . . ." The next sentence reads: "The Justice Department had no direct proof that Mr. Sterling, who managed the Iranian operation, provided the information to Mr. Risen . . . ."
So, Mr. Sterling, who managed the CIA operation, went to the Senate Intelligence Committee to complain about his own management?
Next, a man smart enough to be hired by the CIA is not smart enough to use a telephone or an email address that could not traced to him to divulge U. S. government secrets to a NYTimes reporter, James Risen?
On the other hand, the article states that Mr. Sterling's defense was that he had no reason to hide his communications with Mr. Risen because "they had talked ONLY about Mr. Sterling’s discrimination lawsuit against the C.I.A."
This is truly ironic, if Mr. Sterling is speaking the whole truth. James Risen and the NYTimes appealed all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court to prevent a news reporter from having to go to jail in order not to disclose his sources for a story involving national secrets. Now, a man who is completely innocent, Mr. Sterling, may have to go to prison for decades for crimes which he did not commit.
And, the very worst part of all may be that a man who knows for certain that Mr. Sterling is not guilty will not speak the truth. That man is James Risen, reporter for the NYTimes.
One sentence reads: "They [the Justice Department and C.I.A.] said that the Iran operation had not been mismanaged . . . ." The next sentence reads: "The Justice Department had no direct proof that Mr. Sterling, who managed the Iranian operation, provided the information to Mr. Risen . . . ."
So, Mr. Sterling, who managed the CIA operation, went to the Senate Intelligence Committee to complain about his own management?
Next, a man smart enough to be hired by the CIA is not smart enough to use a telephone or an email address that could not traced to him to divulge U. S. government secrets to a NYTimes reporter, James Risen?
On the other hand, the article states that Mr. Sterling's defense was that he had no reason to hide his communications with Mr. Risen because "they had talked ONLY about Mr. Sterling’s discrimination lawsuit against the C.I.A."
This is truly ironic, if Mr. Sterling is speaking the whole truth. James Risen and the NYTimes appealed all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court to prevent a news reporter from having to go to jail in order not to disclose his sources for a story involving national secrets. Now, a man who is completely innocent, Mr. Sterling, may have to go to prison for decades for crimes which he did not commit.
And, the very worst part of all may be that a man who knows for certain that Mr. Sterling is not guilty will not speak the truth. That man is James Risen, reporter for the NYTimes.
4
'They described Mr. Sterling, who is black, as bitter and frustrated about what he believed was workplace discrimination."
And exactly what has been done to resolve the workplace discrimination claim? Was there merit to his claim?
And exactly what has been done to resolve the workplace discrimination claim? Was there merit to his claim?
7
there is no mention of Holder's failing to prosecute General Petraeus' disclosure of classified information to his lover and biographer anywhere in the article. Is this incomplete reporting or bias/prejudice since I read about the decision not to prosecute Petraeus in the Wall Street Journal. I am growing increasingly frustrated by the banality and naive/biased reporting by the New York Times.
4
Perhaps they discovered that Gen Petraeus did not disclose any such information...and the exposure of an affair (did it happen?) was just to prevent him from telling the truth about Benghazi. Many others have voiced the same thought to me.
As I understand it, Mr. Snowden has not "fled to Russia," but got stuck there on his way to S. America from Hong Kong, when the U.S. government decided to revoke his passport, leaving him stateless.
8
The guy played a risky game talking to journalists. He lost. Now he gets an extended stay at Club Fed. Did he keep his fingers crossed when he took the oath?
2
I just happened to finish reading "State of war" by James Risen, last week. Good stuff there, and well worth the time to read.
It's not as though the information given in the book is revealing anything that Iran does not know already. So why the big deal? To make others think twice before outing.
I for one hope Sterling gets a new trial.
It's not as though the information given in the book is revealing anything that Iran does not know already. So why the big deal? To make others think twice before outing.
I for one hope Sterling gets a new trial.
12
Mr. Sterling's life is in the hands of Mr. Risen. Let us hope Mr. Risen has the heart to let us know if Mr. Sterling is not his source.
1
"...discussing national security matters with reporters." does not amount to espionage. He did not provide secrets to a foreign government.
"He hated the CIA..." but he worked there from 1993 to 2002?
Knowing that he "hated the CIA," he was charged with "managing the Iranian operation"?
I cannot say that Mr. Sterling is completely innocent, but he is certainly not a spy, and the CIA seems to have a lot of responsibility in how things turned out. More likely he is being punished for having taken his concerns to the Senate Intelligence Committee and/or for his discrimination girevance.
"He hated the CIA..." but he worked there from 1993 to 2002?
Knowing that he "hated the CIA," he was charged with "managing the Iranian operation"?
I cannot say that Mr. Sterling is completely innocent, but he is certainly not a spy, and the CIA seems to have a lot of responsibility in how things turned out. More likely he is being punished for having taken his concerns to the Senate Intelligence Committee and/or for his discrimination girevance.
9
When does the public have a right to know what its government is doing on its behalf? It's entirely possible that the people who are paying for these clandestine operations would not agree to them if the knew what they were. I guess it boils down to whether we trust our government to be conducting operations that are moral and legitimately protecting our interests.
3
Has CIA officer Sterling explained why he revealed this information? What was his motive? Why did he want enemies and positional enemies to know some of our secret methods on how we defend ourselves or fight wars? Does he not understand Dresden? Does he hate our country? He owes us an explanation. The newspaperman's treason was simply increasing his status and making more money.
A stupid prosecution. It does no one any good and in the end will tarnish the reputations of Holder and the president. It should be reversed for lack of evidence and lack of sense.
9
And yet we refuse to find guilty the killer of a man who died as a result of an outlawed chokehold.
8
Actually, it would have been amazing if the cop had even been indicted, let alone found guilty. But yes, you're right.
1
US Justice, overwhelmed by political wickedness, like Stalin’s purges of the 1930’s.
4
He compromised our security and deserves it. The Obama administration is two faced because it leaks vital information about similar leaks it does for its own convenience and political purposes which is not pointed out ever. Stuxnet and the info regarding Seal Team Six were leaked just get this phonies elected...who is the Obama administration kidding? Who are you kidding? Nice double standard and how duplicitous! What else is new?
Maybe you could explain how the Obama administration is more (or less) two-faced than any other administration, from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-dum party? I'd enjoy poking holes in that fairy tale.
1
As it turns out, Mr. Obama and his administration were not the alternative to the Republicans in 2012, they were merely the lesser of two evils. And 'lesser' left town.
5
• Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said “The defendant’s unauthorized disclosures of classified information compromised operations undertaken in defense of America’s national security. The disclosures placed lives at risk. And they constituted an egregious breach of the public trust by someone who had sworn to uphold it."
Maybe, but it's not "espionage."
Kudos, Mr. Risen!!! Yours is the true victory here.
Maybe, but it's not "espionage."
Kudos, Mr. Risen!!! Yours is the true victory here.
3
An important piece of Obama's message of "hope/change" in 2008, was his promise to bring transparency to government, an issue he cared about deeply, grounded by his constitutional law background. It is ironic, sad, and disturbing that his administration has not only failed to deliver on this promise, but has pursued a policy of increased secrecy, and aggressive pursuit of whistle-blowers. He has fully accepted the nation that the FBI, NSA, CIA et al, by necessity, must be able to conduct covert operations unfettered by any public scrutiny. This notion--that a secret "government-within-a-government" is acceptable, even desirable, is in complete opposition to any notion that we live in a democracy.
20
Can we spell "FASCISM" ?
1
I do hope that the sentencing judge shows some mercy in this instance. I surmise that the bulk of the motive to prosecute this crime was to deter others from engaging in leaking and also to avoid the embarrassment that comes with the failure of the ill-conceived plan to plant bogus information in the Iranian program.
12
Deterrence of others (general deterrence) is one of the prime goals of punishment. It was not created by this prosecution.
I'm glad to see him found guilty, despite the blatantly self-interested complaints of the media. We do need sanctions for people who spill secrets. Forget all the political hype back and forth. It's simply a practical matter: either sanction people who violate their oaths and wag their tongues or we give up our ability to conduct an intelligence service. And, PLEASE, stop talking about Dick Cheney. Yes, there is sometimes a double standard about who does or does not get punished for leaking. But, we elected (well, I didn't elect Cheney but the majority of the voters did) the people who lead us and, at that level, they have the authority to determine what should or should not be released to the public. And they play politics with those releases. But that comes with some responsibility (they are identifiable) for those leaks and does not declare "open season" for blabbing about everything the CIA does.
6
It's a good thing for Holder that I wasn't on that jury. If the prosecution argued that only Mr Sterling had the information, a motive to give it to Mr Risen, and the opportunity to do so, I would not have been impressed. Knowing those three things about one person does not constitute anything even vaguely resembling proof that that one person did it. It would be very hard to prove that there was no other person on earth that had means, motive, and opportunity, and they certainly could not have done that in the short time the case actually took.
Van
Van
2
You left out the phone calls and emails between the defendant and the reporter.
So Obama -Holder prosecute with vigor Government employees who leak information to reporters. But at the same time it is hands off the torturers in the CIA who defiled the United States by their heinous acts, as revealed by the Senate Intelligence Committee including the CIA officer who authorized destruction of the videotapes of the torture despite a court order that they be preserved. They all get one of Holder's Stay Out of Jail Cards just like all the bankers on Wall Street who brought the U.S. economy to its knees for their personal gain.
It is time Obama-Holder decided to pursue Justice against the torturers, their enablers, like Yoo and Chaney, and the collection of interrogators at Guantanamo, Bagram and the secret dark jails we maintained around the world. Their actions have contributed to the rise of Islamic jihadism, but somehow Obama-Holder do not view Justice as necessary to remedy those wrongs which continue to undermine our security today.
It is time Obama-Holder decided to pursue Justice against the torturers, their enablers, like Yoo and Chaney, and the collection of interrogators at Guantanamo, Bagram and the secret dark jails we maintained around the world. Their actions have contributed to the rise of Islamic jihadism, but somehow Obama-Holder do not view Justice as necessary to remedy those wrongs which continue to undermine our security today.
12
Espionage?
Isn't this passing secret information to an enemy?
Does that mean that the press is now the enemy of the US?
Isn't this passing secret information to an enemy?
Does that mean that the press is now the enemy of the US?
7
When the press knowingly solicits or accepts information that is secret for reasons of national security and publishes it, it damages the country. Mr. Risen and The Times should also be held accountable. You may not agree that the information required protection, but neither you, nor I, nor The Times is in a position to make that judgment.
1
Not really.
First of all, there is a difference between treason and espionage.
Second, having seen first hand how the way the USSR government worked, I am not a firm believer in totalitarian statehood.
So the US government is not on my list of democratic or even non-totalitarian states.
First of all, there is a difference between treason and espionage.
Second, having seen first hand how the way the USSR government worked, I am not a firm believer in totalitarian statehood.
So the US government is not on my list of democratic or even non-totalitarian states.
President Obama will go down in history as one of the most - if not THE most - anti-press, anti-whistle blower Presidents in U.S. history. His administration has done more to curtail freedom of the press than even The Alien and Sedition Acts did way back in John Adams' - the second U.S. President - administration when he signed that bill into law in 1798. What a shameful reflection on America during this period when the government not only illegally snoops on Americans' privacy but also - to add insult to injury - prosecutes more whistle blowers in several years than all previous Presidents combined.
8
The trial lost all credence by allowing Condi to testify. She has admitted that she condoned torture. She should be guilty of two charges one for the use of torture and one for leaking that information.
12
Horrible. Holder should be ashamed to have pursued this with circumstantial evidence. CIA can lie to their overseers, be inept, but the crime is if truth gets out.
Kirikau still in prison, after we got the Senate Torture Report--he's the only one, for trying to tell how useless and harmful the torture was, not for doing or masterminding it. How can Obama and Holder call this justice. Are we supposed to be deaf/dumb/blind? Or just too unimportant to matter, e.g. no big money involved.
What is going on?? Twilight zone in America.
Kirikau still in prison, after we got the Senate Torture Report--he's the only one, for trying to tell how useless and harmful the torture was, not for doing or masterminding it. How can Obama and Holder call this justice. Are we supposed to be deaf/dumb/blind? Or just too unimportant to matter, e.g. no big money involved.
What is going on?? Twilight zone in America.
11
I wonder how the kool aid tasted to all the above folks who condone this nasty prosecution. I hope this conviction is overturned.
1
We will see how serious the administration is about leaking to reporters, if they indict and convict David Petraeus for giving his girlfriend/biographer classified material to help her write her book. There isn't any difference between the two cases other than Mr. Stirling gave the information to an author writing a book that was negative about what the government was doing and Mr. Petraeus leaked stuff to make his mistress happy and himself look good in her book.
10
The charge of espionage seems unnecessarily punitive to me. Here is the definition of one web based dictionary: (Espionage is )the act of securing information of a military or political nature that a competing nation holds secret.
Where is the competing nation in this instance?. It sounds more like whistle blowing, or disregarding an employment agreement. I agree that there should be price to pay, as in firing, losing a security clearance, etc.
The other thing that strikes me about this case is the continuing paranoia over Iran. What is there to fear, even if they were to have a nuclear weapon? Their government has been quite rational over many years. We may disagree with their policies. But there is nothing in their activities anywhere that indicates a interest in nuclear suicide. Mr. Sterling may deserve some kind of punishment, but the charges and sentencing should be related to the charges, not a fear of something that might or might not happen.
Where is the competing nation in this instance?. It sounds more like whistle blowing, or disregarding an employment agreement. I agree that there should be price to pay, as in firing, losing a security clearance, etc.
The other thing that strikes me about this case is the continuing paranoia over Iran. What is there to fear, even if they were to have a nuclear weapon? Their government has been quite rational over many years. We may disagree with their policies. But there is nothing in their activities anywhere that indicates a interest in nuclear suicide. Mr. Sterling may deserve some kind of punishment, but the charges and sentencing should be related to the charges, not a fear of something that might or might not happen.
8
Another Bush/Cheney achievement. We can be proud of the climate on their watch.
10
A court that convicted on the basis of the evidence presented as stated here is a kangaroo court (They used to be called star courts in King Charles day).
8
It is sad when a reporter is the only person a disgruntled CIA agent can exploit to get even with government.
1
Yes, only Senate Committee members with full legal knowledge of the oaths they are breaking should be allowed to leak classified information in distorted versions to advance the political objectives of their undisclosed P.A.C. backer.
1
During a lifetime of research analyzing the power structure behind American foreign policy, Noam Chomsky has read through all the declassified documents as they have been released in accordance with the law. Chomsky said he never came across a single document that would cause harm to the security interests or personnel of the intelligence agencies that foreign governments did not already know. Chomsky claims the real motive behind the classification of documents is to prevent American citizens to learn what their government is secretly doing around the globe that the public may not support.
I have no doubt that the same holds true for Jeffrey Sterling.
For the DOJ to continue its attempt to prosecute Eric Snowden, forced to live abroad to escape imprisonment, is absurd. He exposed President Obama's continued authorization of the NSA's blatantly illegal domestic spying program. In essence, Mr. Obama wants to convict Snowden as a felon for breaking his oath to sworn secrecy because he revealed with hard evidence that Mr. Obama violated and continues to violate the constitution- in violation of his oath of office (an oath he freely accepted twice) to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. The messenger who exposed the illegal actions by Mr. Obama faces prison for taking seriously the oath Mr. Obama swore to uphold. So far, nothing revealed in the press by Snowden’s revelations has caused any harm to persons or U.S. national Security interest.
I have no doubt that the same holds true for Jeffrey Sterling.
For the DOJ to continue its attempt to prosecute Eric Snowden, forced to live abroad to escape imprisonment, is absurd. He exposed President Obama's continued authorization of the NSA's blatantly illegal domestic spying program. In essence, Mr. Obama wants to convict Snowden as a felon for breaking his oath to sworn secrecy because he revealed with hard evidence that Mr. Obama violated and continues to violate the constitution- in violation of his oath of office (an oath he freely accepted twice) to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. The messenger who exposed the illegal actions by Mr. Obama faces prison for taking seriously the oath Mr. Obama swore to uphold. So far, nothing revealed in the press by Snowden’s revelations has caused any harm to persons or U.S. national Security interest.
13
"While the administration has defended the crackdown, Mr. Holder said he believed it went too far at times when it targeted journalists."
The notion that journalists should be allowed to keep their sources secret is a critically important part of a Free Press. But that **also** means that anyone who is **not** officially part of major press outlets has no such protections from the federal govt's long arm of the law. See Mr Snowden for how that goes. This is actually a far more complicated topic than Holden or the current administration attests it to be.
The notion that journalists should be allowed to keep their sources secret is a critically important part of a Free Press. But that **also** means that anyone who is **not** officially part of major press outlets has no such protections from the federal govt's long arm of the law. See Mr Snowden for how that goes. This is actually a far more complicated topic than Holden or the current administration attests it to be.
8
After reading the comments here, I am desperately hoping that many of the commenters do not hold a security clearance.
6
Exactly. It is not the job of the employee handling classified information to question the classification. It is the persons job to protect it.
Having held a few clearances myself, your desperation is misplaced and your understanding seems blind, indiscriminate and incomplete.
Those that do not have an insiders view of this terribly dark part of our country really have no idea.
This case seems to be a little tit-for-tat spat and really much ado about nothing.
Those that do not have an insiders view of this terribly dark part of our country really have no idea.
This case seems to be a little tit-for-tat spat and really much ado about nothing.
4
If people could take off their partisan blinders, they would see that Mr. Sterling's conviction is based on his having leaked information, which is a serious crime and unacceptable from someone in his position.
Mr. Risen's case is a separate issue, and the Administration was smart to separate them.
Mr. Risen's case is a separate issue, and the Administration was smart to separate them.
11
Yes and no. Sterling should have known better in his CIA role but you seem to be evading the entire topic of "whistleblowers" that has been in the news for a few years now. Calling things like that a "crime" (your word) is obviously problematic.
9
I will believe that the Obama administration is serious about cracking down on officials who speak to journalists about security matters when Dick Cheney takes the stand for his role in revealing that Valerie Plame was an under cover CIA agent.
Jeffrey Sterling is low hanging fruit compared to Cheney.
Jeffrey Sterling is low hanging fruit compared to Cheney.
126
Truly this is the "elephant in the room" every time the Risen/Sterling case comes up.
9
Isn't that the truth...
1
Scooter Libby, the chief of staff to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, infamously leaked the information to the news media that Valerie Plame was an under cover CIA agent. Good people probably were killed by foreign governments as a result of this leak.
Scooter Libby got nothing but a "slap on the wrist" in comparison to the decades in prison to which Mr. Sterling may be sentenced. Vice-President Dick Cheney was never brought to justice at all.
I personally believe that both Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney should spend the rest of their lives in prison for their traitorous act of leaking the information that Valerie Plame was an under cover CIA agent.
And, I believe President Barak Obama has a lot to answer for in permitting Attorney General Eric Holder inflicting grossly disparate justice upon Mr. Sterling. The people of the whole nation should crie out: "Shame on you, Mr. President." President Abraham Lincoln would not have permitted such a gross injustice and he would have personally sought the truth.
Scooter Libby got nothing but a "slap on the wrist" in comparison to the decades in prison to which Mr. Sterling may be sentenced. Vice-President Dick Cheney was never brought to justice at all.
I personally believe that both Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney should spend the rest of their lives in prison for their traitorous act of leaking the information that Valerie Plame was an under cover CIA agent.
And, I believe President Barak Obama has a lot to answer for in permitting Attorney General Eric Holder inflicting grossly disparate justice upon Mr. Sterling. The people of the whole nation should crie out: "Shame on you, Mr. President." President Abraham Lincoln would not have permitted such a gross injustice and he would have personally sought the truth.
4
If the Company's leadership asked a pond to engage in activities that would more than likely draw the ire of an attack on US civilians by a rouge state would the pond be morally obliged to fulfill his duty and carry out the mission?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/
I believe there are three moral choices open to the CIA officer in such a situation.
1. Follow the lawful order. He may raise his objection to it, but the conditions of employment in amost any organization (certainly the CIA) do not include the right to overrule one's superior officers. An unlawful order should not be obeyed, risky as that is. The status of the order as unlawful must be established beforehand, as with the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Conduct.
2. The objecting officer may resign his position and not reveal the information. When they are hired, CIA officers raise their right hand and take an oath not to reveal classified information. We are discussing morality here. Violating one's oath is moral only when following it presents a serious conflict with another moral precept.
3. If the officer believes that a moral outcome may only be obtained by violating his oath and going public with the secrets, he should admit it and embrace his punishment. Mohandes Ghandi lived a moral life. Jeffrey Sterling and Edward Snowden have not made honorable choices.
What the heck do you mean by "pond"?
1. Follow the lawful order. He may raise his objection to it, but the conditions of employment in amost any organization (certainly the CIA) do not include the right to overrule one's superior officers. An unlawful order should not be obeyed, risky as that is. The status of the order as unlawful must be established beforehand, as with the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Conduct.
2. The objecting officer may resign his position and not reveal the information. When they are hired, CIA officers raise their right hand and take an oath not to reveal classified information. We are discussing morality here. Violating one's oath is moral only when following it presents a serious conflict with another moral precept.
3. If the officer believes that a moral outcome may only be obtained by violating his oath and going public with the secrets, he should admit it and embrace his punishment. Mohandes Ghandi lived a moral life. Jeffrey Sterling and Edward Snowden have not made honorable choices.
What the heck do you mean by "pond"?
2
Clearly, as demonstrated by history going back to the start of the Cold War, the government has veiled it's adventurism as "National Security" when the reality is that their secrecy is meant for "Government Secrecy". Just as our government endangered hundreds of millions of citizens with their nuclear posturing, they have also in this case with their scam meant to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program, which could have brought on retaliation against Americans through state sponsored terror. The government is quite cavalier about risking the vast American public.
In this case, the government has not only prosecuted a single man, but having done so, has put fear in the hearts of all other government employees.
America is no longer a free nation despite government propaganda to the contrary. It is a repressive and extremely dangerous government making moves to suppress the public through fear and intimidation.
We no longer have a government of the people, but a government of the government people.
When a government employee advises the public of government wrongdoing, he is a hero, not a spy. You should now recognize the true danger the public is in from the government now as this whistleblower was properly telling the American public about actions that endangered the public.
I have such deep regret for voting for Obama that I will never vote again.
In this case, the government has not only prosecuted a single man, but having done so, has put fear in the hearts of all other government employees.
America is no longer a free nation despite government propaganda to the contrary. It is a repressive and extremely dangerous government making moves to suppress the public through fear and intimidation.
We no longer have a government of the people, but a government of the government people.
When a government employee advises the public of government wrongdoing, he is a hero, not a spy. You should now recognize the true danger the public is in from the government now as this whistleblower was properly telling the American public about actions that endangered the public.
I have such deep regret for voting for Obama that I will never vote again.
29
Patrick, you are hyperbolizing the issue. Mr. Sterling was given a security clearance, the possession of which required that he not disclose classified information to unauthorized persons. Everyone who has a security clearance is aware of the requirement and the possible penalties for violating it.
He chose to violate his agreement and break the law. This issue is not about whether our nation is free. It is about whether people, in whom the government places a great amount of trust, can violate that trust at will, regardless of the reasons. Sterling's prosecution and conviction does not in any way affect the freedom of our population at large.
I hold a security clearance and have had one for over 25 years. Sterling's prosecution has not put fear into my heart. It is exactly what I would expect the government to do, and what I want it to do to people who violate the trust placed in them.
In most circumstances, the individual security clearance holder does not have the right to determine for himself or herself whether or not the government's actions are wrong, and violate their nondisclosure agreement based on their own determination. One can understand the chaos that would ensue if that were the case. Sterling, for whatever reason, felt he had that right, and he was wrong.
If you think never voting again will in any way solve your perceived problem, you probably ought not to vote.
He chose to violate his agreement and break the law. This issue is not about whether our nation is free. It is about whether people, in whom the government places a great amount of trust, can violate that trust at will, regardless of the reasons. Sterling's prosecution and conviction does not in any way affect the freedom of our population at large.
I hold a security clearance and have had one for over 25 years. Sterling's prosecution has not put fear into my heart. It is exactly what I would expect the government to do, and what I want it to do to people who violate the trust placed in them.
In most circumstances, the individual security clearance holder does not have the right to determine for himself or herself whether or not the government's actions are wrong, and violate their nondisclosure agreement based on their own determination. One can understand the chaos that would ensue if that were the case. Sterling, for whatever reason, felt he had that right, and he was wrong.
If you think never voting again will in any way solve your perceived problem, you probably ought not to vote.
24
Placing so much emphasis on the vote as the "answer" to our problems is unrealistic. While important, it is just an election. Problems continue to exist. Realistic expectations would be helpful.
4
"Just as our government endangered hundreds of millions of citizens with their nuclear posturing, they have also in this case with their scam meant to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program, which could have brought on retaliation against Americans through state sponsored terror."
Change the words "scam meant to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program" to, "misguided clandestine adventure to assassinate Osama bin Laden, and you have exactly what the "I hate our government no matter what" crowd (sadly, seen largely on the Left) would have been saying if the successful bin Laden op had gone awry.
Our gov't. has done a number of despicable, illegal things in the black ops and intel area area from the Bush II era into the Obama era that I deeply resent and deplore, but the Sterling incident appears so far NOT to be one of them. Mindless backbiting without proper cause is not in the national interest.
Change the words "scam meant to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program" to, "misguided clandestine adventure to assassinate Osama bin Laden, and you have exactly what the "I hate our government no matter what" crowd (sadly, seen largely on the Left) would have been saying if the successful bin Laden op had gone awry.
Our gov't. has done a number of despicable, illegal things in the black ops and intel area area from the Bush II era into the Obama era that I deeply resent and deplore, but the Sterling incident appears so far NOT to be one of them. Mindless backbiting without proper cause is not in the national interest.
2
The timing of the alleged leak is important, but not clarified here. If the Iranians found out by themselves that they were fooled and stopped using that information, then subsequent disclosure would actually be a plus for the CIA in the sense that they really tried to do something clever. And, more importantly any disclosure by a CIA agent would be moot. Of course, the powers that be would not like that loss of control over what gets leaked.
4
Ask Thomas Drake whether publicly known information will prevent being a target for prosecution.
2
Mr. Sterling is guilty of espionage because he informed --not the Russians, not the Iranians, or the Cubans-- but the American People. This can make sense only in a dystopia where the People are the enemy of the Government --of a government that, by definition *cannot* be of the People, by the People, or for the People. With news as this, we have to wonder whether our democracy is dying.
49
#1 - He took an oath. #2- I am quite sure that virtually all the intelligence services of all the other countries of the world read the NYT.
I suggest that there was no reason to report on this other than to sell newspapers.
I suggest that there was no reason to report on this other than to sell newspapers.
9
So you don't want war with Iran over it having nukes, but it is OK to leak the very information that help us to avoid it. And Risen indicated he Not POTUS is the arbiter of what is classified - this is more media's sense of gross self-importance.
13
Risen's opinion on the events is one thing. His refusal to name sources is another. People are conflating the two.
3
On what basis do you conclude that this idiotic flawed-blueprints scheme could possibly be considered "the very information that help us to avoid" "war with Iran over it having nukes"? It sounds more like an amateurish plan cooked up over pitchers of beer by CIA wannabes, and by all accounts was a failure. It presumed that the Iranian scientists working on whatever program they have were so ignorant and gullible that they wouldn't be smart enough to scrutinize the doctored plans based on their own educations and experience, and that takes a particularly arrogant mindset on our part.
Besides, the only harm done here was to embarrass the CIA for concocting such moronic schemes in the first place.
Besides, the only harm done here was to embarrass the CIA for concocting such moronic schemes in the first place.
I recently purchased James Risen's 2006 book "State of War" and read Chapter 9 first so far and found that when reading the new epilogue in the book "The Struggle Over Executive Power". The last paragraph reads: "Many Republicans still don't see a need for a legal framework for the war on terror. They need to ask themselves one simple question: Do I want to bequeath nearly unbridled executive power to President Hilary Clinton?"
I felt that this book when finished will complete my four books I've read already. "Fair Game" by Valerie Plame Wilson, "The Politics of Truth" by Joseph Wilson, "Center of the Storm" by George Tenet and "Decision Points" by George W. Bush. I know there are more books out there but seems that the authors are important too to the discussion since 9/11.
Now instead of Weapons of Mass Destruction we have gone from imaginary means to go to war to the reality of going to war with Nuclear weapons. If the C.I.A. wanted to find if Jeffrey A. Sterling was a threat they would have a long time ago. It takes information and sometimes the wrong information like WMD to make a case to go to war as in 2003. If it wasn't for the C.I.A. back then we would not have gone to war. "Slam Dunk" remember what Tenant said?
I believe that that information in the wrong hands can do us harm. But I also see that leaking the wrong information can do us harm too. And that is the case with Valerie Plame Wilson of the White House leaking her C.I.A. identity.
I felt that this book when finished will complete my four books I've read already. "Fair Game" by Valerie Plame Wilson, "The Politics of Truth" by Joseph Wilson, "Center of the Storm" by George Tenet and "Decision Points" by George W. Bush. I know there are more books out there but seems that the authors are important too to the discussion since 9/11.
Now instead of Weapons of Mass Destruction we have gone from imaginary means to go to war to the reality of going to war with Nuclear weapons. If the C.I.A. wanted to find if Jeffrey A. Sterling was a threat they would have a long time ago. It takes information and sometimes the wrong information like WMD to make a case to go to war as in 2003. If it wasn't for the C.I.A. back then we would not have gone to war. "Slam Dunk" remember what Tenant said?
I believe that that information in the wrong hands can do us harm. But I also see that leaking the wrong information can do us harm too. And that is the case with Valerie Plame Wilson of the White House leaking her C.I.A. identity.
3
Some CIA guy gets the billy club for leaking planned immoral behavior. Meanwhile, an entire past administration walks about, free of conviction for war crimes that crippled whole nations.
GG America. You're doing it wrong.
GG America. You're doing it wrong.
50
Mr Sterling has committed a crime, and he is not a Hero. Unlike Mr Snowden whose action has brought to light some NSA programs that were illegal, Mr Sterling leak is about a secret program against Iran, a Foreign country.
Second, Most CIA operations are conducted abroad with the help of foreign agencies? Leaks like this jeopardize future CIA operations and put agents life at risk for no good reason.
Second, Most CIA operations are conducted abroad with the help of foreign agencies? Leaks like this jeopardize future CIA operations and put agents life at risk for no good reason.
12
You don't think Snowden's leaks were harmful? May he have to live through a thousand Russian winters.
Sterling is getting exactly what he deserves. I just wish Risen was going to be sharing the cell with him. Journalism credentials don't give you a license to publish information about secret government projects to undermine our enemies.
12
Nor did White House credentials give license to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Dick Armitage to blow the CIA cover on Valerie Plame, (or provide license to George W Bush to start a war with Iraq under false pretenses) But none of them are at risk of sharing a cell. Even if we won the war, we lost our country and its ideals along the way.
32
Absolutely, undeniably true, but so what? Someone else on this thread makes a similar case about the U.S. Gov't's. shameful actions in stifling a democratic movement in Iran to install and then support the brutal dictatorship of the Shah. Are we to wait for all the wrongs on our side of yesterday to be set right before we deal with the wrongs committed on every side today?
2
We won the war?
1
These people (criminals) take these government employment positions and understand very well what the rules of play are. We cannot have a system where every employee with an ax to grind gets to unilaterally decide what rules he would like to follow and which rules he deems optional.
If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. If you take the job, honor you commitment. It is dishonorable to do otherwise. The Snowden case had some gray area and is more debatable, this case has very little gray area.
If you take the job, break the rules, and commit espionage, then go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. If you take the job, honor you commitment. It is dishonorable to do otherwise. The Snowden case had some gray area and is more debatable, this case has very little gray area.
If you take the job, break the rules, and commit espionage, then go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
11
Sure Tom, as long as you hold the entire Bush administration to the same standard, in which case they would all be in jail.
1
Eric Holder says that Sterling's disclosures "constituted an egregious breach of the public trust." What public trust would that be? Speaking as citizen, I have no trust at all in the CIA. But for the Sterlings and Risens of this world, the government's secrecy and deceit would have no bounds, would never be discovered.
21
Actually, he is not referring to any trust the American people might put in his honesty. Rather, he is speaking of that responsibility of public officials to do the people's business honorably and in good faith which the leadership of CIA, NSA and high officials of the current and immediate past federal administrations violate with impunity.
5
"...a significant victory for the Obama administration, which has conducted an unprecedented crackdown on officials who speak to journalists about security matters..."
I beg to disagree. This is a victory for 18 U.S. Code § 798 and related laws. These are the people's laws, not Mr. Obama's laws. What Mr. Sterling did was a crime during the previous administration and it will be a crime during the next administration; it has nothing to do with the incumbent president.
I beg to disagree. This is a victory for 18 U.S. Code § 798 and related laws. These are the people's laws, not Mr. Obama's laws. What Mr. Sterling did was a crime during the previous administration and it will be a crime during the next administration; it has nothing to do with the incumbent president.
8
Manning and Snowden are a couple of punks. Some of these other individuals actually served their country and for reasons of their own decided to risk their lives and careers by coming out of the shadows. I cannot judge them and although I may not totally agree with them, have far more respect for them than Manning and Snowden.
2
Fair enough. Let's apply the same standard to those who ordered and carried out the torture at Guantanamo as it was recently detailed in Guantanamo Diary. And while we're at it, lets apply the same standard to those who knowingly inflated the values of Collateralized Debt Obligations and then insured them with Credit Default Swaps to bring about the financial meltdown in 2007. While we're at it, let's put a few former Presidents and Vice Presidents in jail for the war crimes they committed while in office. This conviction and the others like it are all acts of misdirection to keep the American public looking at relatively minor infractions by low level agents while the real perpetrators continue to commit their crimes or go unpunished for the crimes against humanity that they have already committed in the name of the war on terror.
37
The 1985 version of American Jurisprudence went on about the potential benefit of prosecuting 18 USC 241, conspiracy to deprive rights. AJ is a multi volume West Law publication. However, the only time the feds ever prosecute 18 USC 241 is against domestic prison guards. AJ says that if conspiracy to deprive rights were prosecuted then civil rights in this country would be a lot stronger. DoJ doesn't report which crimes it prosecutes and which ones it doesn't. I think that for a while DoJ was required to report prosecution by crime, but they never did.
Another problem w DoJ is that it uses minimum wage call center employees to take citizen reports of federal crimes or let's you fill out 2 paragraphs in an on-line form with no exhibits. So DoJ staff obviously don't care about the crimes that citizens report, only those that make the news or that are on a secret list of people and crimes they want to prosecute. And DoJ seems racially biased, in that deprivation of rights of minority citizens are sometimes prosecuted, but if you don't claim a racial motive, they are perfectly willing to let the deprivation of rights crimes be committed.
Another problem w DoJ is that it uses minimum wage call center employees to take citizen reports of federal crimes or let's you fill out 2 paragraphs in an on-line form with no exhibits. So DoJ staff obviously don't care about the crimes that citizens report, only those that make the news or that are on a secret list of people and crimes they want to prosecute. And DoJ seems racially biased, in that deprivation of rights of minority citizens are sometimes prosecuted, but if you don't claim a racial motive, they are perfectly willing to let the deprivation of rights crimes be committed.
1
Violate The Company, The Company will violate you.
We've had an operative from Kandahar apply. CIA, on salary, overseas 7 months a year, many come home in a box. Ours was a Seal, graduated to more money, talked freely of the criminality, banality, incivility and dreadful health conditions. He was charged with squiring our brass - and did not want Langley, so he wanted out. Terrified he would be outed... had no skills other than killing. Asked to farm, fudged hi skill, unbalanced, devoted to God, wished to home school his kids, married to his mother, void of an education, a loser wrapped in the American flag, completely disoriented in civilization, just the most obvious example.
We do not have a civilized response at the CIA. We have paranoid response.
Terror has caused us to adapt by adopting the methods of our enemy.
We have lost - even if we have won.
We've had an operative from Kandahar apply. CIA, on salary, overseas 7 months a year, many come home in a box. Ours was a Seal, graduated to more money, talked freely of the criminality, banality, incivility and dreadful health conditions. He was charged with squiring our brass - and did not want Langley, so he wanted out. Terrified he would be outed... had no skills other than killing. Asked to farm, fudged hi skill, unbalanced, devoted to God, wished to home school his kids, married to his mother, void of an education, a loser wrapped in the American flag, completely disoriented in civilization, just the most obvious example.
We do not have a civilized response at the CIA. We have paranoid response.
Terror has caused us to adapt by adopting the methods of our enemy.
We have lost - even if we have won.
9
The moral of this story, don't work for the CIA. You will come across morally repugnant activities that a normal person would want to shine a disinfecting light on. Only an immoral person can work for a state security agency, or so it seems.
10
Obama and his Justice Dept have a different definition of espionage than I do. I voted for him but am appalled at his information control. Is the Senate now the enemy?
11
He was a CIA officer that left traces of emails and phone calls with NYT reporter. How stupid could you be, who trained him, Mr. Bean?
9
"The conviction is a significant victory for the Obama administration, which has conducted an unprecedented crackdown on officials who speak to journalists about security matters without the administration’s approval. "
Yes it is a significant victory, if the enemy is the Constitution and its First Amendment. Whatever the neo-cons may claim, Mr. President, we are not at war with Iran and you have no Congressional authorization to conduct such operations. You have fired the first salvo of a cyberwar that may involve every nation. This trial/conviction is a public affirmation of that salvo.
He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.
Yes it is a significant victory, if the enemy is the Constitution and its First Amendment. Whatever the neo-cons may claim, Mr. President, we are not at war with Iran and you have no Congressional authorization to conduct such operations. You have fired the first salvo of a cyberwar that may involve every nation. This trial/conviction is a public affirmation of that salvo.
He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.
14
Most commenters here don't seem to realize that with classified information, you, as someone who has knowledge of that information, don't get to decide when it should be made public. That's up to those in higher positions.
Disclosing classified information to a reporter doesn't automatically make you a whistle blower and give you immunity.
Nor does the fact that a project or mission failed mean that it needs to be made public without first being properly declassified.
Sterling belongs in jail, plain and simple.
Disclosing classified information to a reporter doesn't automatically make you a whistle blower and give you immunity.
Nor does the fact that a project or mission failed mean that it needs to be made public without first being properly declassified.
Sterling belongs in jail, plain and simple.
52
"Disclosing classified information to a reporter doesn't automatically make you a whistle blower and give you immunity."
Actually it is all of that "gray" in that statement you make that allows our govt to prosecute whenever it feels like it. The laws as such are intentionally not black and white. Look at Holden's quote in the article. The govt clearly makes choices who it prosecutes for whistleblowing.
Actually it is all of that "gray" in that statement you make that allows our govt to prosecute whenever it feels like it. The laws as such are intentionally not black and white. Look at Holden's quote in the article. The govt clearly makes choices who it prosecutes for whistleblowing.
4
Technically not true. A person is required to obey the law and can not absolve themselves of that responsibility by saying they were following orders. It is illegal to conceal evidence of crimes, since that makes you an accessory to those crimes. Therefore, it is illegal to not reveal classified information that is evidence of government crimes.
2
I thought it was "innocent until PROVEN guilty?" It's only "simple" for the simple minded.
This is absolutely horrible. Unless we are given a lot more detail than what we've seen so far, it sure looks as though this person has been railroaded to make a point that our administration is not "soft on terror." I've been an Obama/Holder supporter on so many issues, but not on their "terrorism" beat. They milk it for their own good, as far as I can see. I have not seen any publicly available news to convince me that Mr. Sterling posed a threat to the American people.
46
Was Sterling "railroaded" to violate his nondisclosure agreement? Was President Obama right there, urging him on?
Whether or not Sterling posed a threat to the American public is irrelevant. He broke the law, and in a nation of laws, that means something. In this case, it means a well-deserved prison sentence.
Yes, many other people have broken laws and not been prosecuted. I'm not saying that's right, but if we fail to prosecute anyone because we chose not to prosecute someone, we are no longer a nation of laws.
Whether or not Sterling posed a threat to the American public is irrelevant. He broke the law, and in a nation of laws, that means something. In this case, it means a well-deserved prison sentence.
Yes, many other people have broken laws and not been prosecuted. I'm not saying that's right, but if we fail to prosecute anyone because we chose not to prosecute someone, we are no longer a nation of laws.
3
Citizen, Rule of Law is only cited by those in power (typically to justify its power), and rarely cited by those who are governed.
2
Mr. Obama clearly declared he can choose not to enforce immigration laws. He arbitrarily granted waivers and delays to his own ACA. @Citizen - Selective enforcement and lack of rule of law is a trademark of the Obama administration, too bad you are only now just realizing that.
They are going to charge people with sedition next. The torturers and war criminals and those who ordered the torture and war crimes go free, while those who reveal the stupidities and crimes they committed get overcharged under red scare period laws. Disgusting. I will not under any circumstances support a presidential candidate who does not condemn all this. No matter how supposedly worse the other guy is. There has to be a line; and this, doing the bidding of the totalitarian deep state, is it.
56
Truman claimed the creation of the CIA was his greatest mistake. Perhaps there have been secret bombs defused on domestic grounds, however their greatest and most memorable body of work is as follows:
Khmer Rouge, Pinochet, Shah of Iran, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Noriega, Papa Doc, Contras, etc. What a track record. Impressive.
Their not-so-passive body count rivals some of the best in the business.
What does all this game-playing actually accomplish except having a large portion of the world deservedly angry at us? Is this what the founding fathers had in mind? To manipulate other countries politics? I don't think so.
Khmer Rouge, Pinochet, Shah of Iran, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Noriega, Papa Doc, Contras, etc. What a track record. Impressive.
Their not-so-passive body count rivals some of the best in the business.
What does all this game-playing actually accomplish except having a large portion of the world deservedly angry at us? Is this what the founding fathers had in mind? To manipulate other countries politics? I don't think so.
18
Many on the right coast agree with you. I trust that many in the middle of the country do, also.
2
If someone is to be punished for sharing classified secrets that could potentially be a danger to national security, is there a punishment for those who withhold information from the public that the public has a right and need to know.
Is there a format by which Dick Cheney and company, who told people nothing of the truth about weapons of mass destruction not being in Iraq, so they get held accountable? It is a serious question.
Is there a format by which Dick Cheney and company, who told people nothing of the truth about weapons of mass destruction not being in Iraq, so they get held accountable? It is a serious question.
34
The Bush/Cheney fellows not only held back information for their own shady reasons, but also leaked it for shady reasons. The Plame incident, referred to by others here, is one example. Another was Rumsfeld's outing of the man who blew the whistle on the tortures at Abu Ghraib, as Rumsfeld "thanked" him by full name in a nationally televised speech--which, predictably, wrecked the man's life as "patriots" threatened his and his family's lives for his "treason" in making the abuses public. That one was legal, but boy, it was a crime.
2
Leaking classified information to the press is the same as leaking it to the enemy - in this case Iran. This is not a complicated case. The felon's motive may not have been money but it really doesn't matter that much. We simply can't have individuals - except for the POTUS - decide which information should or should not be classified.
13
Because the world changes faster than you blink, I reject your premise that Iran is the enemy. Come on buddy; keep up.
8
I can just imagine good, loyal Germans thinking much the same shortly before Hitler became Chancellor. If the conditions are set to allow the emergence of a police state, then a police state becomes more likely to emerge. We are not immune.
9
It is curious that Eric Holder has found several journalists to prosecute for leaking classified information, but could not find a single person to prosecute for the spectacular collapse of the stock market in 2008, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars lost and millions of jobs vaporized.
The motto, is that if you want to commit a crime and not do time, go to Wall Street.
The motto, is that if you want to commit a crime and not do time, go to Wall Street.
74
Eric Holder does not have what it takes to bring the hard cases, to fight the hard fights. In the end, if the case is too difficult, he will not pursue it.
2
Mr. Sterling, like most government employees with high level security clearances sign a confidentiality agreement not to divulge classified information to the anyone, including the press, for any reason whatsoever. I know the liberal has no concept of such loyalty, as they want to do their own thing regardless of how it effects others, the nation, or themselves, but traitors need to be punished, and punished will the traitors be. In short, don't betray America.
7
"... the liberal has no concept of such loyalty..."
That is a lie. I'm what you would call a liberal, what I would call a progressive. Many of my friends in the Community are progressives. Not one of us has revealed the secrets we learned in the course of careers.
That is a lie. I'm what you would call a liberal, what I would call a progressive. Many of my friends in the Community are progressives. Not one of us has revealed the secrets we learned in the course of careers.
3
Tell that to the high officials of the present and prior federal administrations and leaders of the security agencies who continually commit crimes in our names and have the gall to assert that what they are doing is for our good rather than theirs and that we shouldn't have been let in on what they are doing anyway. You want to the conversion of the republic to a police state to succeed? Just keep on with that attitude.
6
Outrageous. When will the officials from the George Bush Junior Administrations be put on trial for mass murder and mass destruction around the world. This action by Mr. Sterling was a public service in any case.
25
Mr starlings action is not a public service, it is a disservice, because he has succeeded in putting the public in harms way.
Please explain clearly just how you know that he has put the public in harms way? It seems to me far less clear that is the case with Mr. Sterling than it is with both the present and the immediate past federal administrations, both of which have engaged in repeated illegal acts of war against foreign sovereign nations upon which no war has been declared by the Congress of the United States.
5
State secrets are state secrets and what this means is that it is everybody's secret, and when you are charged as a custodian of that information you must hold it sacred.
There is a price to pay for willful and reckless divulge this sacred information you will pay a heavy price, this price you the custodian is aware of, therefore Mr Sterling since he is aware of the consequence of his actions, should pay the price to the full extent of the law without mercy.
We as individuals must understand that our individual actions have a tendency to go beyond our self, our individual actions have a tendency to wreak havoc on innocent lives.
There is a price to pay for willful and reckless divulge this sacred information you will pay a heavy price, this price you the custodian is aware of, therefore Mr Sterling since he is aware of the consequence of his actions, should pay the price to the full extent of the law without mercy.
We as individuals must understand that our individual actions have a tendency to go beyond our self, our individual actions have a tendency to wreak havoc on innocent lives.
5
Except when you leak top secret material that makes the President look good (how we got bin Laden, cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear program, etc.). Then, it's okay.
Whistleblowers go to jail. Cheerleaders don't. Even though they both released state secrets. I wonder why?
Whistleblowers go to jail. Cheerleaders don't. Even though they both released state secrets. I wonder why?
9
It is difficult to run a world-wide empire when your home government is still a sort-of republic. You need to make sure your citizens don't know what its government is doing. And so the obsession with keeping oh-so-many secrets secret, and the vindictive treatment of whistle blowers.
4
Too bad that high officials of the current and prior federal administrations do not understand this. Or is it alright with you that they understand it and proceed anyway to act illegally in the name of the people of the United States?
3
I am so terribly saddened by the President's harshness and by this prosecution.
17
Under the Obama administration, perhaps the least transparent in our history, the definition a state secret has been expanded to include what is classified as a state secret. This should give even those who believe the state has a right to protect privileged information pause for thought.
14
Not true. That definition of "state secret" has been in existence ever since any state had secrets. Your statement is a tautology. Look it up.
2
"the definition a state secret has been expanded to include what is classified as a state secret."
What's unreasonable about that? How else would you define what a state secret is?
What's unreasonable about that? How else would you define what a state secret is?
3
It just occurred to me that this, that knowledge of what is a secret can be made a secret, could lead to something similar to an infinite regress. Just thinking about how a future federal prosecutor might formulate a charge of disclosure of a fourth-order state secret is enough to make my head spin.
4
...and the attacks on the freedom of the press continue, so I guess we can.
Maybe we should have asked beforehand "Yes we can!"...What?
Maybe we should have asked beforehand "Yes we can!"...What?
6
GATHER ROUND and let us now hear all the Obama apologists defend this persecution... as they defend Obama's persecution of Snowden and Assange. Big Brother just doesn't like people doing Freedom of the Press or any other Freedom thing.
18
Snowden and Assange were traitors. Why didn't you include Manning? Oh, OK, He/She is not a poster child. Again, why not Manning?
6
"an egregious breach of the public trust by someone who had sworn to uphold it..."
I wish courts were as enthusiastic about applying this to those sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Just who is "the enemy" here? The People? The Press?
I wish courts were as enthusiastic about applying this to those sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Just who is "the enemy" here? The People? The Press?
23
"Just who is 'the enemy' here?"
The enemy in this case is Iran. In case you aren't following the news, they are working night and day to build a nuke which will threaten Israel as well as many other countries. If they get a nuke, it will trigger a mad race by all other Middle Eastern countries to get one too. Having nukes in every Middle Eastern country is not something any reasonable person wants.
The enemy in this case is Iran. In case you aren't following the news, they are working night and day to build a nuke which will threaten Israel as well as many other countries. If they get a nuke, it will trigger a mad race by all other Middle Eastern countries to get one too. Having nukes in every Middle Eastern country is not something any reasonable person wants.
2
This was a two week trial. I probably prosecuted one trial that long per year.
Such trials are a lot of work. You prepare off and on for about a year. Sometimes you end up knowing the facts even better than the defendant. If you take a case to trial, you're at least 95% sure of guilt. The other 5% you call reasonable doubt and you learn to live with it. If an innocent defendant pleads guilty, that's his or her decision with the advice of a lawyer. When you go to trial, you lose about a third of the time. Usually it feels like a guilty got off, but who knows? After losing a bunch of guilties, it seems unlikely that you're convicting any innocents. There's a lot of attention to innocents found guilty. Nobody knows how often it happens. if you knew it happened even once to you, you'd right the wrong. That's easy. I'm clearly biased. But if I ever convicted an innocent I'd be shocked. Prosecutors are shocked at times. But my biased view is not very often. I know that won't satisfy anybody. But that's the way it is.
Such trials are a lot of work. You prepare off and on for about a year. Sometimes you end up knowing the facts even better than the defendant. If you take a case to trial, you're at least 95% sure of guilt. The other 5% you call reasonable doubt and you learn to live with it. If an innocent defendant pleads guilty, that's his or her decision with the advice of a lawyer. When you go to trial, you lose about a third of the time. Usually it feels like a guilty got off, but who knows? After losing a bunch of guilties, it seems unlikely that you're convicting any innocents. There's a lot of attention to innocents found guilty. Nobody knows how often it happens. if you knew it happened even once to you, you'd right the wrong. That's easy. I'm clearly biased. But if I ever convicted an innocent I'd be shocked. Prosecutors are shocked at times. But my biased view is not very often. I know that won't satisfy anybody. But that's the way it is.
2
Michjas: You write as if you are, or were, a prosecutor, which of course is a position of trust to do the people’s business in public view. Therefore, I would hope you would attach your real name to your remarks, and be accountable for them, which I find at once sincere and disgusting.
7
"But if I ever convicted an innocent I'd be shocked. "
Michjas, how would you know? I am not sure but I think you have some heavy-duty blinders on regarding your profession.
Michjas, how would you know? I am not sure but I think you have some heavy-duty blinders on regarding your profession.
2
I describe the job of prosecutor and the perspective that comes from doing the job. You and everybody else hire me and assign this job to me. Every prosecutor in the country has in common essentially everything I describe, so it's not me you take issue with. I liked my job, worked hard at it, and thought it was an honorable job in a top notch system. But you're the boss. Like many Americans I'm guessing you're fed up with the legal system from soup to nuts, from the Supreme Court to the neighborhood cop. Yet you don't make any changes. Whose fault is that?
Ah, yes, protecting the secrecy of our Secret Government, the highest priority of any modern democracy. How else can you have a Bay of Tonkin Southeast Asian war or an invasion of Iraq with criminal elements in government willing to give up information to journalists? (Yeah, Feinstein knows what's going on, like Obama does.) That's why these trials are so important, making sure the potential criminal elements know what can happen to them if they break the law of "secretest secrecy".
What we do know, though, is that our secret government saw to it that bin Laden took a bullet in the head and then was dropped deep into the sea--no sense in bringing him back for interrogation, deposition, and a trial, might learn something they don't want us to know, nicht wahr?
What we do know, though, is that our secret government saw to it that bin Laden took a bullet in the head and then was dropped deep into the sea--no sense in bringing him back for interrogation, deposition, and a trial, might learn something they don't want us to know, nicht wahr?
12
Every organization has its rules. Nobody forced them to work for the government secret agencies. They broke the rules, they suffer the consequence. Do you think an employee who steal or reveal their company's confidential information can walk away unharmed too?
9
... like the "Qaeda Suspect Facing Trial in New York Over Africa Embassy Bombings Dies" five days before his trial was supposed to begin...
"Cause two can keep a secret... If one of the them is dead…" lyrics from The Pierces - Secret
"Cause two can keep a secret... If one of the them is dead…" lyrics from The Pierces - Secret
2
Hmm, never thought of our Secret Government as a corporation and as secret agents stealing proprietary information to be sold to the highest bidder--in this case, taxpayers via their mass-media journalists. Could have point. Seems a little fascist, though.
Is it just me who feels the timing of this, Nor Easter Juno, will get this story buried deeper than the measly inches of snow NYC will receive. Someone must have a very sublime sense of humor.....saddened and annoyed at Sterling's outcome.....maybe the appeal will reveal more of the nonsense that passes for the commonweal.....
5
I have always wondered why those who get convicted of high federal crimes, those that get such publicity as this one, get to go to prison by appointment only. Meanwhile, if you get convicted in a state court your bail is immediately revoked and you go straight to jail. It's almost as if the convicted felon gets to bring his date book to court and let the judge know when he will be available to start serving time.
State convicts don't get the opportunity to get their affairs in order, say goodbye to family and friends, enjoy some luxuries before the big day. Just wondering...
But back on topic, this guy had to know that what he did could get him in deep trouble. If he still feels that it was worth it, then I applaud him for standing by his conviction (pun intended) no matter that he may have gone about things the wrong way.
State convicts don't get the opportunity to get their affairs in order, say goodbye to family and friends, enjoy some luxuries before the big day. Just wondering...
But back on topic, this guy had to know that what he did could get him in deep trouble. If he still feels that it was worth it, then I applaud him for standing by his conviction (pun intended) no matter that he may have gone about things the wrong way.
6
It is chilling that a whistleblower was convicted but even more chilling that he was convicted based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. What he revealed was more of an embarrassment to the C.I.A. than a national security threat.
117
Sterling is no "whistleblower." He didn't reveal any government wrongdoing. He just leaked information about a top secret effort to stop the Iranian nuclear project without using military force.
3
If you are an American citizen I'm not quite sure why a verdict based on circumstantial evidence is so "chilling." That's what happens in many criminal cases. Do you think most murders have an eyewitness? It's perfectly legal and the jury instructions in federal cases specifically discuss the usefulness of circumstantial evidence.
Seems to me that those who decry convictions based on circumstantial evidence are likely the same commenters who declare they could never rely on eyewitness testimony (direct evidence) because it's too unreliable.
Seems to me that those who decry convictions based on circumstantial evidence are likely the same commenters who declare they could never rely on eyewitness testimony (direct evidence) because it's too unreliable.
What is the definition of whistleblower? People have lost all perspective. They seem to believe that if they don't like what the CIA is doing, it's okay to have its actions leaked.
If the CIA's actions are a problem -- that is, laws are actually being broken -- the right way to address them is through elected officials, not through disgruntled employees, with problems of their own, in the media.
If the CIA's actions are a problem -- that is, laws are actually being broken -- the right way to address them is through elected officials, not through disgruntled employees, with problems of their own, in the media.
2
So much for the fourth estate. An open and free journalism to provide checks and balances on our American style of government - legislative, judicial. administrative is imperative. Secrecy in any branch of government, as well as bias in the U.S. Supreme Court is anathema to our founding principles.
12
Absurd! Don't you think they had state secrets during the Revolutionary War? What would have happened during D Day if a journalist had printed the invasion plans? Do you think some journalists has the right to publish the names of all of our spies and informers? Do you think some journalist can publish detail plans on building a suitcase nuke?
5
State Secrets are to be discussed only at defined forums. State Secrets must remain Secret. They are not for public consumption and debate. In the public arena there is nothing to be gained except some dubious knowledge which is of no consequence. However, leaks and public outcry only alerts the enemy who will outplay our Government foiling all our plans and strategies.
11
Yeah right "move along, mind your own business, nothing to see here"
6
Profound......
3
"State Secrets are to be discussed only at defined forums." Translated, that means "state secrets" are to be planted in the media when planting them suits the purposes of those currently in power -- their electoral strategy, for instance.
6
.
.
Glad just to see this covered on nytimes.com.
MANY developments in the case went uncovered here, unless they could somehow be linked to James Risen.
A real shame.
If you think of this man as a "whistleblower", his case deserved the closest of coverage. I shouldn't have needed to turn to other web sites (and court records) for my information.
.
Glad just to see this covered on nytimes.com.
MANY developments in the case went uncovered here, unless they could somehow be linked to James Risen.
A real shame.
If you think of this man as a "whistleblower", his case deserved the closest of coverage. I shouldn't have needed to turn to other web sites (and court records) for my information.
26
Agree that court proceedings ought to have been worth far more extended coverage. This should be an in-depth review. It's still timely -- go for it!
10
.
@ Charles Morgan:
Agree with your suggestion and appreciate the back-up.
@ Charles Morgan:
Agree with your suggestion and appreciate the back-up.
1
Espionage is the pinnacle, the ne plus ultra of charges.Do not be mistaken, this is meant to be a warning.
If you make a move that causes usgov to feel embarrassed, you are going to be charged with espionage.There is no evidence that Sterling committed these acts, but the jury convicted him on all charges.
Where was the jury from? Alexandria, Virginia, were everyone works for usgov.
If you make a move that causes usgov to feel embarrassed, you are going to be charged with espionage.There is no evidence that Sterling committed these acts, but the jury convicted him on all charges.
Where was the jury from? Alexandria, Virginia, were everyone works for usgov.
24
.
Actually, jury was drawn from broad federal district called "Eastern Virginia", which consists of 35+ Counties (including Fauquier and Henrico).
85% of Virginia's jury-eligible residents were eligible for this jury pool.
Why do you think the jurors were from Alexandria?
And "Espionage Act" is a century-old law that has been amended many times to include a wide variety of activities.
Actually, jury was drawn from broad federal district called "Eastern Virginia", which consists of 35+ Counties (including Fauquier and Henrico).
85% of Virginia's jury-eligible residents were eligible for this jury pool.
Why do you think the jurors were from Alexandria?
And "Espionage Act" is a century-old law that has been amended many times to include a wide variety of activities.
5
I'm sorry, but last time I looked, circumstantial evidence is still considered to be evidence. The question is, is the prosecution narrative that surrounds the circumstances and pulls the evidence together, strong enough to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
For example, in this case, Sterling maintains that (one or more?) Senate staffers who were briefed on the details, did the leaking. If the prosecution was able to show that certain crucial information that was only known by Sterling, was never disclosed in these briefings, then the "circumstantial evidence" would be sufficient for a valid conviction. Just sayin".
Of course, Mr. Risen knows who the leaker(s) is/are, and the potential fact that he does not come forward to help exonerate on appeal, a wrongly convicted Sterling who undoubtedly faces a long prison sentence (assuming that Sterling's contention is true), is a very telling consideration indeed.
For example, in this case, Sterling maintains that (one or more?) Senate staffers who were briefed on the details, did the leaking. If the prosecution was able to show that certain crucial information that was only known by Sterling, was never disclosed in these briefings, then the "circumstantial evidence" would be sufficient for a valid conviction. Just sayin".
Of course, Mr. Risen knows who the leaker(s) is/are, and the potential fact that he does not come forward to help exonerate on appeal, a wrongly convicted Sterling who undoubtedly faces a long prison sentence (assuming that Sterling's contention is true), is a very telling consideration indeed.
6
There are some security matters that are just that, security matters. If it is not in the public's interest to reveal these matters, but only to sensationalize, those that do reveal these matters are acting against our country. Common sense has to prevail sometimes.
9
Really, do tell!
2
General Petraeus? Is he going to do jail time? It almost does not matter what Sterling did unless the top of the chain is treated the same way........until then this is simply bureaucratic hypocrisy of the worst kind.
73
Sen Feinstein (D- Ca) recently commented on the potential indictment of David Petraeus giving classified information to his lover. Her comment..."the man has suffered enough". Once again people in power get away with crimes, whistle blowers get sent to prison. AMerica....land of corruption
78
Haiku
Shame on Obama;
My vote: Medal of Freedom
For Jeffrey Sterling.
Shame on Obama;
My vote: Medal of Freedom
For Jeffrey Sterling.
12
What is remotely noble about outing a spy for our side who bravely tried to disrupt Iran's nuclear program? Should every intelligence operation that doesn't pan out be exposed ? Who is Sterling to decide that? And who is Risen?
8
In whose interest is it for Iran to go nuclear?
6
Obama, obviously, wants Iran to have nukes, so it is in the best interest of his handlers
1
Russian "spys" arrested the same day.
1
Classification can't be used to cover up fraud or incompetence. Has the court decided that Risen's book is inaccurate? If so, then nothing was leaked. If not, then nothing that was leaked was properly classified.
71
I bet Jeffrey Sterling must be cursing the day when he decided to leak classified information. He faces years of prison time while Mr. Risen is happy and free because he holds a journalistic license. Sorry NYT! For the record though I will still stay your faithful reader.
6
That (his journalistic license) is not why he is "happy and free." I doubt he's happy right now, in any case.
He is "free" because the high Court decided not to hear his case.
He is "free" because the high Court decided not to hear his case.
5
There are no excuses for Sterling to have divulged this operation against Iran to the media. If Sterling had complaints about how this operation was being handled by the CIA, he should have left them with the Senate Intelligence Committee.
8
Indeed, they have a huge circular file, and they tolerate lying to their face without compulsion.
11
We don't even indict torturers from the CIA, but when someone heroically shares info about failed programs with us, the PEOPLE, he is sent to jail as a spy. This is government above the people and against the people. Obama should listen to the people.
225
Don't confuse the broad intentions of the government with regard to the people with governmental practices and protocols and procedures AS government.
The people ARE NOT the government, though a good government may have their interests are heart. May.
The people ARE NOT the government, though a good government may have their interests are heart. May.
and why you need to know about a failed program aimed at Iran? Are you spy expert? Did your parents need to know about every program aim at Soviet in the past?
3
Obama is wonderful at Listening to the people, Giving speeches, Saying what we want to hear... all in soaring, heart pounding rhetoric. But Doing what he says he'll do is another matter. That's the problem with Obama: Doing the right thing.
5
First and foremost, it's not clear that the story in Risen's book was based on Sterling's leaks. According to Sterling's lawyer, the prosecutors lacked hard evidence. It's fair to guess that, had Sterling been tried before a jury outside the DC area, he might not have been convicted. Second, legitimate journalists should be shielded but it's simply wrong that Sterling faces long prison time. Risen was certainly punished himself by his long ordeal with Holder's Dept. of Justice - punished financially, as well, I would guess. There are losers all around, including the reputations of the President and AG Holder for their harsh application of flawed legal principles. Who is going to reset our system of justice to something like equilibrium, needed in so many areas of the law?
16
On the same day that Jeffrey Sterling is convicted of Espionage no less.
Remind me again which secret were give to the "enemy", the NY Times and our free press.
Remind me again which secret were give to the "enemy", the NY Times and our free press.
2
A black mark on democracy. Sterling might have been guilty of breaking CIA rules, but not "espionage." He wasn't "spying" for a foreign power, he might have been helping US citizens. Our fascistic administration at work.
26
are you kidding? Revealing secret information is helping foreign power by its very own nature. And how that helping US citizens? What next? Somebody reveal the secret nuclear launch code?
3
Breaking CIA "rules", as you so quaintly term them, is breaking the laws that define espionage. Laws Sterling swore, under oath and with full disclosure of the penalties for violation, to uphold.
By any dictionary, legal, or moral definition: Sterling is a traitor.
By any dictionary, legal, or moral definition: Sterling is a traitor.
4
Multiple confusions for my poor brain:
Mr Sterling said the operation was mismanaged. Next paragraph, "Mr Sterling managed the Iranian operation.
?
"Circumstantial evidence." He was convicted on circumstantial evidence?
What is the difference between espionage and treason?
I'm sure there's more...
Mr Sterling said the operation was mismanaged. Next paragraph, "Mr Sterling managed the Iranian operation.
?
"Circumstantial evidence." He was convicted on circumstantial evidence?
What is the difference between espionage and treason?
I'm sure there's more...
4
"espionage" is an act, one of many that are acts of the crime, "treason"
1
It's depressing to see a Democratic administration outdoing both those of Nixon and Bush in prosecuting men whose only crime is possessing a conscience. And even sadder, unlike under Republican administrations, courts are now convicting such men and handing down draconian punishments. This is all terribly consistent with the spirit of our times.
95
Savor the most open presidential administration in history.
20
Speaks volumes about the underhanded shenanigans of the U.S. ... Then they have the gall to blame the victims.
Why should anyone be surprised to hear why others find the U.S. an immoral and hegemonic entity preaching democracy and the rule of law when they have forgotten the meaning of it.
People of conscience are ignored, the American public has no say, the rich get richer, people get blown to smithereens under false beliefs...Where does it stop and when ???
Why should anyone be surprised to hear why others find the U.S. an immoral and hegemonic entity preaching democracy and the rule of law when they have forgotten the meaning of it.
People of conscience are ignored, the American public has no say, the rich get richer, people get blown to smithereens under false beliefs...Where does it stop and when ???
54
"Speaks volumes about the underhanded shenanigans of the U.S."
You consider using a computer virus to stop Iran from going nuclear to be "underhanded shennanigans"?! Would you rather have us or Israel launch a military attack or invasion? I think it was an ingenious plan that slowed Iran by nearly a year.
You consider using a computer virus to stop Iran from going nuclear to be "underhanded shennanigans"?! Would you rather have us or Israel launch a military attack or invasion? I think it was an ingenious plan that slowed Iran by nearly a year.
2
What's troubling is that by and large, leakers are ending up in prison and reporters as fearless champions of democracy. In Wall Street, quite the opposite, the leakers have cut deals to get recipients in jail, although the courts think both should go scot-free (under appeal).
Jumbled-up if you ask me. So what is the solution? Why not take the example from drug enforcement where mere possession is enough? The point being that today, propogating information without, err, metadata, is useless, and if not criminal, highly suspect.
Jumbled-up if you ask me. So what is the solution? Why not take the example from drug enforcement where mere possession is enough? The point being that today, propogating information without, err, metadata, is useless, and if not criminal, highly suspect.
7
I no longer know what "espionage" means. I always thought it meant passing information in secret to an enemy.
Sterling passed the information to an American news source so it could be made public. The danger in real espionage comes when you don't know that your enemy is aware of your plan.
The Times has shown its willingness in the past to maintain confidentiality when lives might be jeopardized. Did the release of this information put field agents at risk? Was there a public benefit in knowing about this kind of plan?
Those shrieking "treason" (with which espionage is not synonymous) are making noise without articulating what values are at stake.
Sterling passed the information to an American news source so it could be made public. The danger in real espionage comes when you don't know that your enemy is aware of your plan.
The Times has shown its willingness in the past to maintain confidentiality when lives might be jeopardized. Did the release of this information put field agents at risk? Was there a public benefit in knowing about this kind of plan?
Those shrieking "treason" (with which espionage is not synonymous) are making noise without articulating what values are at stake.
177
You wrote, "I no longer know what 'espionage' means. I always thought it meant passing information in secret to an enemy." I guess the conclusion to be drawn it that we, the people, are the enemy.
17
Add "classified" before the word 'information' and replace 'enemy' with "unauthorized person" and you will have the gist of "The Espionage Act of 1917" as it applies to this case. It has been said that the Act is vague and has been amended many times but still allows for much prosecutorial discretion.
7
Passing top secret information to anyone is a crime; it doesn't have to be an enemy. Wasn't Jonathan Pollard convicted and sentenced to prison for giving government secret to an ally: Israel? That was many years ago too.
6
I am so glad it was Eric Holder and the Obama administration that persecuted Mr. Sterling, a black man. Otherwise, we would be hearing cries of racism from Holder.
11
New York Times is just as guilty; I fail to see how or why public should have known this information. (My previous comments were not published.)
9
Believe it or not, the Times killed the story after being persuaded by the Bush White House that it was a gratuitous release of classified information that would endanger people and aid our enemies. Those were the old days. Risen went off and put it in a book.
6
How can any progressive or anti-war person support the President anymore. This ruling shows there can be no safe whistle blowers in our country and Mr Obama with this and his absolute support of the Patriot act has accomplished that feat. Republican are worse so where is the choice for citizens.
46
Interesting, you ask where is the choice for citizens ?
As is becoming obvious, what citizens?
In old England, the courtier tells the king...my lord, the plebians are revolting. To which the King replies, of, course they are revolting, what else.
That is the type of disdain that has gradually developed and the citizenry condones it. Why else !!
As is becoming obvious, what citizens?
In old England, the courtier tells the king...my lord, the plebians are revolting. To which the King replies, of, course they are revolting, what else.
That is the type of disdain that has gradually developed and the citizenry condones it. Why else !!
9
A couple of choices I can think of. Always vote against the incumbent and/or stop cooperating with the government.
2
Bussword, you're confusing the King of England with the King of The Wizard of Id.
However, the question you raised, "What citizens?", is all too relevant.
However, the question you raised, "What citizens?", is all too relevant.
Weeks ago, the NY Times reported that Federal prosecutors have recommended that former CIA Director David H. Petraeus face charges for providing classified documents to his biographer. When will that prosecution go forward?
146
Not is our lifetimes
4
Lets be clear in terminology:
Petraeus faces charges of treason, exactly the same a Sterling. Like "Sterling, he gave classified documents to an American writer to publish or to support publication of the writer's work.
Because Petraeus was sexually involved with the classified document recipient, he actually appears weaker than Sterling and therefore more likely to be guilty, driven by his you-know-what as he was.
Petraeus faces charges of treason, exactly the same a Sterling. Like "Sterling, he gave classified documents to an American writer to publish or to support publication of the writer's work.
Because Petraeus was sexually involved with the classified document recipient, he actually appears weaker than Sterling and therefore more likely to be guilty, driven by his you-know-what as he was.
1
Aren't CIA officers who think something's wrong supposed to go to Congress and the NYT? Sterling should file an appeal, and Dershowitz should defend him.
17
What does Sterling's race have to do with this story? ["They described Mr. Sterling, who is black, as bitter and frustrated...."]
8
He complained of racial discrimination?
2
Because his disgruntlement with the agency was ostensibly about discrimination. As the article states.
4
I guess this is fair? Mr. Sterling is convicted and faces years in prison while his beneficiary walks free and maintains the integrity of journalists not revealing their sources.
8
Whether Mr. Sterling is thought of as a "whistle blower" or a "leaker of state secrets" is probably a matter of one's views on national security versus the right of citizens to know what their government is doing in their name. One can also debate how much, if any, damage was actually done to the security of this country by having this CIA operation. It does seem rather naive for any of us to believe that other countries did not assume the United States was engaged in covert activities to eliminate or diminish actions we perceive as threats to our security. That clearly includes Iran's nuclear program.
However, a charge of espionage was a disgraceful choice by the Justice Dept and the Attorney General should be ashamed. History will not judge him, nor President Obama, kindly on this point, nor should it.
However, a charge of espionage was a disgraceful choice by the Justice Dept and the Attorney General should be ashamed. History will not judge him, nor President Obama, kindly on this point, nor should it.
108
I think this is a bad case for the Media to use as a rallying point against government action to enforce laws against revealing highly classified information.
The first point to make is that clandestine operations against enemies - declared or undeclared - of which, Iran is certainly one, is not ipso-facto improper, much less illegal. To determine that a nuclear Iran is not in our national interest (and then do something about it using clandestine means) is IMO properly within the President's power. I see nothing reported here that would qualify as either illegal or unconstitutional action by the government therefore, there is no "whistleblower" aspect to Mr. Sterling's actions whatsoever.
This case should be contrasted with the case of Mr. Snowden, where, in fact the gov't. was engaged in specifically illegal i.e. expressly prohibited by law, and/or actions that any reasonable constitutional law expert might deem unconstitutional. Revealing that the gov't. is conducting illegal domestic surveillance of American citizens - even including members of the Senate committee that oversees such matters, under cover of improper claims of secrecy, in my mind clearly qualifies as whistleblowing - a patriotic act that should be protected in a free society.
We must protect the principle that No One - not even the President - is, or can be, authorized to act illegally or unconstitutionally.
The first point to make is that clandestine operations against enemies - declared or undeclared - of which, Iran is certainly one, is not ipso-facto improper, much less illegal. To determine that a nuclear Iran is not in our national interest (and then do something about it using clandestine means) is IMO properly within the President's power. I see nothing reported here that would qualify as either illegal or unconstitutional action by the government therefore, there is no "whistleblower" aspect to Mr. Sterling's actions whatsoever.
This case should be contrasted with the case of Mr. Snowden, where, in fact the gov't. was engaged in specifically illegal i.e. expressly prohibited by law, and/or actions that any reasonable constitutional law expert might deem unconstitutional. Revealing that the gov't. is conducting illegal domestic surveillance of American citizens - even including members of the Senate committee that oversees such matters, under cover of improper claims of secrecy, in my mind clearly qualifies as whistleblowing - a patriotic act that should be protected in a free society.
We must protect the principle that No One - not even the President - is, or can be, authorized to act illegally or unconstitutionally.
16
While I agree with your argument as concerns Mr. Snowden, I do not think your argument concerning Iran fairly reflects that USG actions concerning Iran are colored by the long-standing grudge of our security services over the Iranian people having overthrown the despotic thug we sponsored as their tyrant ("HRH" (as if the USG has any business sponsoring anyone so designated) the Shah.) In that connection, it should be remembered that "HRH" was the despot of Iran at the time of the fall of the government which the USG sponsored at the USG inspired overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950s.
If Iran is an enemy of the United State, whether openly declared by Iran or covertly attacked by the USG, then it is our enemy because we have made it so, and not by any glorious stand for truth and justice; though those who do not like us might say that it has indeed been for the American way. To the extent that it has been the American way over at least the last century to oppose a genuine thug of USG choosing against a USG perceived thug of the indigenes choosing, perhaps those who do not like us and might say USG actions were indeed the American Way have reason not to like us and might be correct in saying so.
If Iran is an enemy of the United State, whether openly declared by Iran or covertly attacked by the USG, then it is our enemy because we have made it so, and not by any glorious stand for truth and justice; though those who do not like us might say that it has indeed been for the American way. To the extent that it has been the American way over at least the last century to oppose a genuine thug of USG choosing against a USG perceived thug of the indigenes choosing, perhaps those who do not like us and might say USG actions were indeed the American Way have reason not to like us and might be correct in saying so.
6
It is too bad that James Risen cannot share the imprisonment of his dupe, Jeffrey Sterling, as he is at least equally culpable in the publication of highly sensitive information. This recalls the case of "Scooter" Libby who was accused of publicizing the name of a low-level CIA employee. Since the name had actually been leaked by someone else, the relentless Patrick Fitzgerald charged him only with perjury in connection with a conversation he had had with Tim Russert of NBC. Russert graciously consented to testify at Libby's trial and later died with the satisfaction of having helped to ruin his life. A NYT reporter whose name I can't remember was jailed by Fitzgerald for refusing to testify as to her conversations with Libby, although she had published nothing regarding them.
Her steadfastness was rewarded by the Times when it fired her.
Her steadfastness was rewarded by the Times when it fired her.
9
The problem that Judith Miller (formerly of the New York Times) had was that she wrote articles about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were entirely false - probably designed to bolster the Bush Adminstration's case for invasion. The Times was right to fire her. She also later refused to testify in the matter involving the naming of Valerie Plame, probably covering up for Libby, whom even G.W. Bush refused to pardon, to the fury of Dick Cheney. I wouldn't get all sentimental over Judith Miller.
21
Valerie Plame was not a "low-level CIA employee" by any means. She was a covert operative who had developed and maintained a complex cover organization (Brewster-Jennings) that was used to discover nuclear capabilities of countries in the mid-east. She was outed by Scooter's office in retaliation for a NY Times story written by her husband, former US Ambassador to Niger Joseph Wilson. The CIA confirmed her status as a highly intelligent NOC or “deep cover officer.”
On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, using information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative. Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.
The five-count indictment of Libby included perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice (one count), and making false statements to federal investigators (two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via Robert Novak. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, using information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative. Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.
The five-count indictment of Libby included perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice (one count), and making false statements to federal investigators (two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via Robert Novak. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
21
Let us recall that the journalist in the case, Robert Novak, was never subjected to any compulsion to name his source, nor was his career affected.
5
Even if the journalist Risen thinks he's beyond the reach of the law for revealing state secrets, a CIA agent is not, especially when the case pertains to Iran. If Risen really knows that Sterling is innocent, then he should morally testify in the case. Bet he won't.
14
Why "especially" when pertaining to Iran? If revealing USG covert acts against a foreign sovereign is a violation of law, why would it make a difference if the particular case were US actions in violation of the sovereign state of Iran as opposed to Ireland, Iraq or Israel? Had the USG acts pertained to one of the latter, should Sterling have been acquitted? If so, why the distinction?
3
To A Resonable (but unrealistic) Person: During the Cold War, it would be special if an American spied for the Soviet Union rather than, say, Sweden. You can talk about abstract legalisms, but we treat countries differently according to their danger to us.
2
@Dave: You're very confused. Sterling was spying for NO COUNTRY. That's why the charge under the Espionage Act is a perversion of law.
3
The energy the US government is deploying to crack down on information leakers raise questions about the soundness and morality of its foreign policy.
20
Good. He knew the rules. Pay the price.
20
The government uses secrecy as teflon to routinely hide activities. Secret courts, limited disclosure to Congress, and no public accountability leaves no choice but for people to use the press to air their concerns. The administration should prosecute people only when they have adequate oversight and true accountability. It is clear from Snowden and other disclosure besides a 50 year history of lying that government agencies cannot be trusted to act without real oversight tension. This must include criminal prosecution of both career and political leadership that violates the law.
Recently, former CIA head Hayden was shown to have lied to Congress. Where is the prosecution?
Recently, former CIA head Hayden was shown to have lied to Congress. Where is the prosecution?
176
A weak reed for a NYT Pick. The comment is grammatically obtuse and unintelligible. Read it again before taking offense.
3
Whether or not grammatically obtuse in your opinion, the underlying message is valid. Violation of secrecy prosecutions during this century appear to be more aligned with the interests of the current USG administration as perceived by that administration than with the interests of the United States; at least to the extent one defines the United States as its people, rather than as the current USG administration.
6
A slight emendation. 60 years of lying.
In 1953 the U.S. Government refused to provide essential evidence about a test plane crash that killed the crew, on the grounds that "state secrets" would be revealed. The Supreme Court accepted that as a justification and the Government thereby won its case. When decades later the facts were revealed, it turned out the only "state secret" was the culpability of the Government in having flown a plane that was not airworthy.
In 1953 the U.S. Government refused to provide essential evidence about a test plane crash that killed the crew, on the grounds that "state secrets" would be revealed. The Supreme Court accepted that as a justification and the Government thereby won its case. When decades later the facts were revealed, it turned out the only "state secret" was the culpability of the Government in having flown a plane that was not airworthy.
6
We should have disbanded the CIA after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Few countries are over run by external forces. It is from within they crumble, and its these agencies that do much of the destruction.
73
The Bay of Pigs became a fiasco when the Kennedys, Bobby and Jack, refused their request for covering fire and air support. While the CIA organized the invasion attempt, the "go" sign came from the White House -- as did the decision to let them die on the beach.
1
And thank goodness those no-goods didn't get us into a war with Cuba and maybe the U.S.S.R. Or would you have preferred we add Cuba to the list of countries we've invaded by proxy, with Guatemala?
2
And the CIA organized an invasion in an attempt to accomplish what ? Cuba was never any threat to anyone but their own people and the people of some dictatorships in South and Central America.
3
Labeling a traitor "whistleblower" is an insult to real whistleblowers -- to those that reveal fraud in their corporation, knowing it may mean the end of their careers, for one example. Releasing classified information is simply treason. Motivation is not germane; Sterling took an oath, acknowledging in writing his acceptance of the penalties for violating it, and did so anyways.
Passing on information that one knows to be classified, even though it is supplied by another, is itself a crime. The First Amendment does not entitle the press to break the law. Risen publicized details he knew to be classified. If our Attorney General had any respect for the laws he swore to uphold, Risen would also be charged -- and convicted.
Passing on information that one knows to be classified, even though it is supplied by another, is itself a crime. The First Amendment does not entitle the press to break the law. Risen publicized details he knew to be classified. If our Attorney General had any respect for the laws he swore to uphold, Risen would also be charged -- and convicted.
33
It might technically be a crime - but so I think was the American Revolution. If a technical crime is done for a good reason, the penalty should be lessened.
4
Where in the constitution does it say that the government can keep secrets from the citizens and lie to them? I doubt that the founding fathers would have approved of having a secret police, or classifying documents as top secret. In any case, the press must be free to print whatever they have, and their journalists be shielded from prosecution for it, otherwise democracy is finished.
10
The founding fathers were operating in a much simpler world.
Yet, a little history will tell us that there was plenty of drama
in the halls of government in those days...
Yet, a little history will tell us that there was plenty of drama
in the halls of government in those days...
1
The conviction is a significant victory for the Obama administration, which has led an unprecedented crackdown on officials who speak to journalists about security matters without the administration’s approval. Prosecutors prevailed after a yearslong fight in which the journalist, James Risen, refused to identify his sources....
[ A President who became the fiercest opponent of governmental openness. ]
[ A President who became the fiercest opponent of governmental openness. ]
14
What is more significant is that a cyber attack on a sovereign nation is an act of war.
19
@Nancy and gerry--don't you people do nuance? It's all black and white, blanket statements that make Democrats look as dumb as Republicans. Obviously, some things must be kept secret so unless there is a very good reason (like the outrage of the phony Iraq war) to reveal them to the public. Having a grievance against the CIA does not qualify as a good reason to reveal things that may jeopardize the careful dance that both parties are engaged in the Iran negotiations.
1
@Lisa: You misread both Nancy and gerry. Neither of them said a grievance was a justification. Neither of them mentioned a grievance at all. In this case, the motives of Sterling are not legally relevant; what is relevant is whether he violated the law he is said to have violated. The history of the Espionage Act is very clear that it was not intended to cover anything but outright espionage. Revealing a secret to the U.S. press and people, no matter how much you may hate it, is not espionage under any normal definition. This is Obama's and Holder's version of "enhanced interrogation", that's all it is -- changing the meaning of words to carry out a legal trick.
3
In the long run, maybe even sooner, mail order drones are likely to be a greater threat to American security than what Sterling was convicted of. The current Times story, "Government Worker Crashes Drone at White House " is just the microscopic tip of a huge iceberg.
I certainly do not know whether Sterling committed the alleged crimes. However, in considering the trial, what comes to mind are Judge Rakoff's comments on the invidious use of sentencing threats to produce plea bargains in his article in the New York Review ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people... ) and follow-up responses. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jan/08/why-innocent-plead-... One would hope that the sentencing judge would consider whether Judge Rakoff's analysis is relevant to this case as he decides on a sentence.
I certainly do not know whether Sterling committed the alleged crimes. However, in considering the trial, what comes to mind are Judge Rakoff's comments on the invidious use of sentencing threats to produce plea bargains in his article in the New York Review ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people... ) and follow-up responses. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jan/08/why-innocent-plead-... One would hope that the sentencing judge would consider whether Judge Rakoff's analysis is relevant to this case as he decides on a sentence.
8
Another travesty of justice. Convicted on circumstantial evidence. Of espionage, no less, for the crime of exposing an illegal, stupidly conceived program. Merica.
God, I hope he appeals.
God, I hope he appeals.
110
Probably. And the appeal, I enthusiatically expect, will be denied.
Hasta la vista, Sterling. :)
Hasta la vista, Sterling. :)
2
Resolved to have 1984, eh, NeverLift? The grownups know what's good for you, right?
4
It seems we have two instances of interference with US relations with Iran. In one case a failed CIA initiative was made public; in the other, a promising initiative of the President and the executive is being compromised by political meddling by a congressional leader. In the first case, there was an embarrassing disclosure, but no tangible harm done; it the other, it is sabotage of current diplomatic efforts with possible dire effect.
Is the perpetrator of the second offense to go on trial? The question of guilt is hardly an issue here.
Is the perpetrator of the second offense to go on trial? The question of guilt is hardly an issue here.
40
Given what we know about the CIA, how can anyone believe anything that they say. When it is convenient Govt. leaks whatever it wants that it thinks will aid in what they wish to do. When someone leaks something that embarrasses the Govt., then it becomes 'treason'. And so it goes.
159
"The case revolved around a C.I.A. operation in which a former Russian scientist provided Iran with intentionally flawed nuclear component schematics. Mr. Risen revealed the operation in his 2006 book “State of War,” describing it as a mismanaged, potentially reckless mission that may have inadvertently aided the Iranian nuclear program."
"Officials revealed their preferred strategies for persuading reporters not to run sensitive stories. Also revealed was that, at the C.I.A.’s office in New York, employees could easily walk out with classified documents and never be searched."
Just curious, does the CIA do much of anything right?
"Officials revealed their preferred strategies for persuading reporters not to run sensitive stories. Also revealed was that, at the C.I.A.’s office in New York, employees could easily walk out with classified documents and never be searched."
Just curious, does the CIA do much of anything right?
84
This outfit is by name our INTELLIGENCE agency.
In the past 50 years, has it provided any actionable intelligence?
Oh yes, there was that info about the yellow powder from Africa that wasn't for making bombs, but that was inconvenient since it interfered with our preconceived notion to invade Iraq and so was disregarded.
Why doesn't the CIA do what it is supposed to do, i.e., gather intelligence?
In the past 50 years, has it provided any actionable intelligence?
Oh yes, there was that info about the yellow powder from Africa that wasn't for making bombs, but that was inconvenient since it interfered with our preconceived notion to invade Iraq and so was disregarded.
Why doesn't the CIA do what it is supposed to do, i.e., gather intelligence?
8
I'm fairly sure it does, but we don't hear about the things it does right, right?
3
@Eyes Open: We don't? We hear about lots of things it does that succeed. Overthrowing the governments of Iran and Guatemala, for instance. That's public knowledge. Now draw your own conclusion.
2
This is so wrong -- a grievous injustice for Mr. Sterling, and a blow to the American public.
65
So glad to see justice done. His conduct poses a danger to our nation.
26
It isn't even a wet squib to the fireworks show presented by the leadership of CIA, NSA and other security "organs" under the previous and federal administrations, often covered or otherwise aided or abetted by high officials of those administrations.
1
The persecution of whistle-blowers by this administration is an abomination, especially since this president ran on a platform of increasing transparency and "restoring our values." Perhaps a crime was committed, but "espionage" pre-supposes a motive and, at the least, should require that he revealed the information to an enemy, not to the American press. This is a disgraceful outcome. Obama and Holder should be ashamed of themselves.
202
Many of us feel sick about what the "change we can believe in" turned out to be.
Pardon Sterling now.
Pardon Sterling now.
27
You really need to understand the difference between whistleblowing and committing treason.
But I doubt you ever will.
But I doubt you ever will.
11
One person's "whistle-blower" is another person's "traitor." He had motive because his discrimination lawsuit against the CIA was dismissed. You state that "espionage . . . should require that he revealed the information to the enemy, not to the American press." Since the purpose of keeping this matter secret was to keep "the enemy" from learning about it, is disclosing the information to the American press where "the enemy" can read it any different in substance from disclosing it directly to the enemy?
7
A criminal worthy of the worst punishment . How dare this man compromise our computer defenses against those who would kill every last one of us. Iran is failed, rogue nation who has sworn to destroy us.
To Guantanamo with this criminal. Let him rot with others who would destroy us
To Guantanamo with this criminal. Let him rot with others who would destroy us
22
Shame on you for knowing nothing much about Iran. Not that it's perfect -- way far from that! -- but it's an island of sanity compared to the real nut cases in the Middle East.
5
Journalistic confidentiality is not something anyone should take for granted. After both Valerie Plume and Edward Snowden, I don't trust "state secrets" as a reason the wool should be pulled over our eyes.
77
Aw, really? I am so disappointed.
I take it you'd trust the unbiased accounts found in the NYTimes, yes?
Justice has been done. I hope it continues. You take an oath: You keep it. That's it.
I take it you'd trust the unbiased accounts found in the NYTimes, yes?
Justice has been done. I hope it continues. You take an oath: You keep it. That's it.
4
@NeverLift: Time for you to learn how "state secrets" entered the U.S. legal vocabulary. It was a case of pure lying by the U.S. Government. That is not now a secret; you can read the whole story on Wikipedia.
2
This is just outrageous. The man tells the truth to the American people and they call it espionage. This is not about 'national security' it is about protecting the CIA from being known for what it is. I want Obama to be impeached. There are plenty of Republicans who would vote for this. I don't think many Democrats would. From now on I will vote Republican.
25
Very good! At first I didn't realize you were joking!
7
So you value openness and now you'll vote republican? Politics aside, they've done nothing at all to be transparent in any way, from blocking access about lobbying to supporting hiding behind interest groups in our very monied-elections. Voting republican for transparency is like voting republican to protect the environment.
39
@ Paul: Benedict Arnold told the truth as well. Should he have walked?
4
that sends a clear message to Snowden.....stay away !!!!
91
All the more reason to support Snowden and whistleblowers everywhere.
5
The CIA has been willing to lie and mislead congress at every turn. I would like to know what we gain by these elaborate schemes other than to get egg on our faces when they are exposed.
I hope the appeal works as if he leaked that's good, if not it's unfair to have scared a jury into its verdict.