The LA Times published an "op-ed"editorial written by John Kiriakou who is currently serving time in prison for releasing information about the CIA's torturing of captives.
I got 30 months in prison. Why does Leon Panetta get a pass? - latimes.com:
John Kiriakou believes he was a "Whistle Blower" who was revealing the clearly illegal activities of the CIA in doing waterboarding. Apparently he knew he was releasing information to the press.
On the other hand, Panetta thought he was talking to a room of cleared people, but there happened to be some uncleared press people.
Over 25 years ago, I was involved in similar situations where a political appointee was speaking to a large audience and inadvertently released classified information to people who were not authorized. In that situation, and I would assume also in the referenced "Panetta" situation mentioned in the article, a security officer detained all attendees to that conference and debriefed everyone. That debriefing, in effect, swore all to keep the secrets that were inadvertently released. There are standard procedures for handling the inadvertent release of classified information. I get the impression that it happens a few times every year.
In John Kirakou's situation, he released information without giving Government security an opportunity to "debrief" the reporters. This is a significant difference. He, in effect, intended to release that information to the public.
I do agree with Kirakou, that the Espionage Act needs some serious updating. It is currently too vague and can be applied inconsistently and unfairly. A lot has changed over the years --and the use of the internet has changed almost everything! Too many times our country has given prosecutors new powers and they have abused them in order to get a "win" instead of trying to achieve "justice."
I certainly agree that any new version of Espionage Act needs to be very tough on the release of information. However we do seriously need a way to protect "whistle blowers." That protection needs to be built-in to any new law. I believe that if we had a good, somewhat independent, method of doing whistle-blowing, that a lot of classified information could be protected even better than it is. For example, if Snowden knew he could have reported his concern to someone who could have done something about the NSA spying on Americans or foreign leaders, would it have provided an outlet for him, and protected some of the information?
The real question is: Who would be that "independent" contact for a whistle-blower to talk to? Clearly the organization's "Inspector General" is not the right spot. I would suspect that if Kirakou or Snowden reported to their IG, the first thing that would be done was that Kirakou or Snowden would be locked up in a cell and never heard from again. Should it be an office of the GAO? An independent organization, similar to the FED? How could this be implemented? It is a very tough problem!
'
I got 30 months in prison. Why does Leon Panetta get a pass? - latimes.com:
John Kiriakou believes he was a "Whistle Blower" who was revealing the clearly illegal activities of the CIA in doing waterboarding. Apparently he knew he was releasing information to the press.
On the other hand, Panetta thought he was talking to a room of cleared people, but there happened to be some uncleared press people.
Over 25 years ago, I was involved in similar situations where a political appointee was speaking to a large audience and inadvertently released classified information to people who were not authorized. In that situation, and I would assume also in the referenced "Panetta" situation mentioned in the article, a security officer detained all attendees to that conference and debriefed everyone. That debriefing, in effect, swore all to keep the secrets that were inadvertently released. There are standard procedures for handling the inadvertent release of classified information. I get the impression that it happens a few times every year.
In John Kirakou's situation, he released information without giving Government security an opportunity to "debrief" the reporters. This is a significant difference. He, in effect, intended to release that information to the public.
I do agree with Kirakou, that the Espionage Act needs some serious updating. It is currently too vague and can be applied inconsistently and unfairly. A lot has changed over the years --and the use of the internet has changed almost everything! Too many times our country has given prosecutors new powers and they have abused them in order to get a "win" instead of trying to achieve "justice."
I certainly agree that any new version of Espionage Act needs to be very tough on the release of information. However we do seriously need a way to protect "whistle blowers." That protection needs to be built-in to any new law. I believe that if we had a good, somewhat independent, method of doing whistle-blowing, that a lot of classified information could be protected even better than it is. For example, if Snowden knew he could have reported his concern to someone who could have done something about the NSA spying on Americans or foreign leaders, would it have provided an outlet for him, and protected some of the information?
The real question is: Who would be that "independent" contact for a whistle-blower to talk to? Clearly the organization's "Inspector General" is not the right spot. I would suspect that if Kirakou or Snowden reported to their IG, the first thing that would be done was that Kirakou or Snowden would be locked up in a cell and never heard from again. Should it be an office of the GAO? An independent organization, similar to the FED? How could this be implemented? It is a very tough problem!
'
No comments:
Post a Comment