Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Free Speech, International, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics

Whistlebowers Past and Present

136px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal_svg

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

In recent weeks and months, we have all heard and read the many articles and stories about the whistleblower Edward Snowden and his disclosure of enormous amounts of NSA “secrets”.  His disclosures have exposed what the NSA was really doing, which is spying on practically every American’s metadata online and on the phone.  His disclosures have also put on display what happens to a “whistleblower” in this day and age.  He has been forced to flee his home country and is currently living in exile in Russia.

Just what were his crimes that made him fear for his safety and raised doubts as to whether he would ever be given a fair trial for his alleged disclosures of secret material and programs?  He did what any good American should do and that is expose illegal or immoral governmental activities and allow the American public to decide whether its government is acting legally and fairly. Didn’t he?

You may think his disclosures were an unprecedented example of a citizen uncovering and disclosing government programs designed to, at best, skirt the line of legality by spying on Americans, but you would be wrong.

Over 40 years ago, a group of anti-Vietnam war activists did what Snowden did and actually escaped any notoriety or criminal prosecution in order to show that the FBI was involved in a then unprecedented level of spying on Americans involved in the anti-war and civil rights movements.

“In 1971, as opposition to the Vietnam War peaked and civil unrest rattled America, activists knew they were being watched, infiltrated and undermined by the FBI. But they didn’t know the extent of the agency’s efforts, nor how far J. Edgar Hoover’s agents would go to suppress dissent.

That would change one night in March, when eight men and women broke into an FBI satellite office in Media, PA. They absconded with nearly every piece of paper they could find, sifted through it and anonymously sent various documents detailing the agency’s spying and dirty tricks to major media organizations.  While some outlets were initially reticent about reporting on the documents, the revelations would ultimately unleash a torrent of investigative reporting, shining a light on Hoover’s efforts to destroy Martin Luther King and the agency’s now-notorious COINTELPRO program.” Nation of Change

These “burglars” not only escaped with a treasure trove of FBI documents that proved the agency was involved in improper spying on Dr. Martin Luther King, and most, if not all of the anti-war organizations of the day.  They also escaped prosecution and they have just recently gone on record to explain what they did and why they did it.

The 5 of the 8 activists/whistleblowers who were interviewed prior to the release of a book described just how they pulled the covers off the secret and seamy side of the FBI and eventually the program mentioned above, COINTELPRO.  This “heist” took a lot of planning and the activists planning it were taking a big risk.  They all knew the reputation J. Edgar Hoover had and what could happen to anyone who attacked his agency and programs.

‘“When you talked to people outside the movement about what the F.B.I. was doing, nobody wanted to believe it,” said one of the burglars, Keith Forsyth, who is finally going public about his involvement. “ There was only one way to convince people that it was true, and that was to get it in their handwriting.” ‘

Mr. Forsyth, now 63, and other members of the group can no longer be prosecuted for what happened that night, and they agreed to be interviewed before the release this week of a book written by one of the first journalists to receive the stolen documents. The author, Betty Medsger, a former reporter for The Washington Post, spent years sifting through the F.B.I.’s voluminous case file on the episode and persuaded five of the eight men and women who participated in the break-in to end their silence.

Unlike Mr. Snowden, who downloaded hundreds of thousands of digital N.S.A. files onto computer hard drives, the Media burglars did their work the 20th-century way: they cased the F.B.I. office for months, wore gloves as they packed the papers into suitcases, and loaded the suitcases into getaway cars. When the operation was over, they dispersed.”  New York Times

It is an amazing story that the FBI and its reported 200 agents that were investigating the burglary, were unable to prosecute any of the whistleblowers.  The documents, once disclosed, were instrumental in shining a bright light on the FBI’s illegal activities.  The documents also provided the first glimpse of the COINTELPRO program.

The COINTELPRO program had been in place since 1956 and was designed to spy on and disrupt civil rights groups and later, anti-war activists and organizations.  ‘“It wasn’t just spying on Americans,” said Loch K. Johnson, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Georgia who was an aide to Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho. “The intent of Cointelpro was to destroy lives and ruin reputations.”‘

Senator Church’s investigation in the mid-1970s revealed still more about the extent of decades of F.B.I. abuses, and led to greater congressional oversight of the F.B.I. and other American intelligence agencies. The Church Committee’s final report about the domestic surveillance was blunt. “Too many people have been spied upon by too many government agencies, and too much information has been collected,” it read.” New York Times

The Church Committee’s report can be found here.  Without these brave activists and the documents that they disclosed, the Church Committee may not have even been formed to investigate the FBI and its illegal activities.  When one reads about what these people did in 1971, do you think we, as a country, have learned anything about how important our privacy is and how important legitimate whistleblowers are to our country?

It does seem obvious that these 8 brave activists improved our country and helped protect our privacy rights, at least for a short while.  Mr. Snowden gave us a stark reminder that we have tumbled back to the J. Edgar Hoover days.  What do we need to do as a country to make sure our privacy is protected and that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies do not continue to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment?

Should we consider these activists in 1971 as heroes and is it right that our government considers Edward Snowden to be a traitor?  I submit that 40 years ago, these 8 people made a difficult decision that improved our country and brought some sunshine upon the programs of the FBI.  Will Snowden’s revelations really bring about the changes and improvements that followed the break-in in 1971?  Or will the intelligence agencies succeed in hiding behind the veil of national security and continue to gather data on all of us?   I am not too optimistic about our current situation, but what do you think?

85 thoughts on “Whistlebowers Past and Present”

  5. randyjet,
    I appreciate your disagreement with my statement about Pelosi’s poor performance when it comes to supporting and defending the Constitution of America. There was an election to win, and win the Dems did. But where is making political elections priority #1 when several members of your caucus delivered over 35 Articles of Impeachment, many of which were about Constitutional violations, of which we’re still saddled with?

    That is the poor performance that I’m addressing.

    She took an Oath and decided to take the path of political convenience and we, the Nation, are still paying that price. Are we not?

  7. So when did we declare war on Yemen? I know we invaded Yemen some time ago but when did the discussion about the invasion take place?

    While I don’t like the idea of NSA gathering up any of this data, I’m more concerned about the tracking of various journalists that prospective whistle blowers would go to. Wayne Madsen did articles on the live nuclear bombs that traveled across the country, one of which never made it back to its home base. It just “disappeared”. His sources dried up out of fear. They saw what was happening to others who spoke out. Wayne was also aware of the massive surveillance and wrote about so it was more dangerous for his sources to contact him. (btw, he has experienced charges that come through the phone that can cause serious burns, compliments of the government. check his blog for details.)

    Suspected whistle blowers are frequently are prosecuted on trumped up charges and their lives ruined. Actual whistle blowers frequently end up dead.

    1. bettyk the US did not invade Yemen at all. I hope you would read some history of that country. Yemen at one time was divided into two countries, North and South, with the South being a leftist government and the North, a traditional tribal Muslim fundamentalist one. So that war has been going on for decades. The Yemeni government has acquiesced in the use of drones to take out Al Qeada terrorists in the north since they hate them as much as the US does.

      I have to laugh at some who say the drone strikes are alienating the families of those who are killed. Let’s get real here! Any couple who is inviting Al Qeada to the wedding is not a big fan of the US, so I am not too concerned that some of them get killed too. Just like I would have had no problem bombing a Nazi wedding with Hitler in the party. Tough.

      anonp We are talking about the drone strikes, not Iraq. I was against the Iraq invasion too. I liked Obama when he said he would get out of Iraq, and increase forces in Afghanistan. My brother thought Obama “betrayed” him,, but I had to point out that Obama did exactly what he said he would do. Obama never ran as a “peace” candidate. In fact, he pointed out in two debates that he would go into Pakistan no matter what to get Bin Laden, another PLUS for Obama in my view. I am also in favor of the drone strikes in Pakistan too. I doubt there are any people on the fence in those areas who would be friendly to either the US or the Paki government. Any person who does not support the terrorists have been long gone to more friendly areas. Especially after the shooting of that school girl. How do you think that one played among the folks in that area? I’ll support any drone strike that will kill the scum or their supporters who did that.

    2. America should not be funding any foreign wars or providing foreign aid to anyone. We cannot even feed our own people. The military industrial complex is just another method of pork belly politicking and the war dogs will lie strait to the our faces to continue their redistribution of wealth schemes. That is and always has been what government is really about. Nothing more nothing less. Political Operatives representing special interest groups to manipulate the marketplace to benefit those that are generally less efficient in the market place. Our history is full of the true stories of such actions.

      From the old tariff scams perpetrated by the Republican Party that increased prices to consumers to the antitrust legislation and prosecution that did the same, when will the American citizen read the history books that provide the evidence of this instead of the muckraking, ratfcuting and yellow journalism that continues to this day by the main stream media and political operatives.

      Our Citizens have been constantly lied to throughout our history by the lame stream media and even many historians, proving illogical rational for introducing regulatory policies that always hurt consumers and benefited special interest producers.

      The best example of the myths of is the Robber Baron era. The real robber barons where the political operatives associated with government redistribution of wealth programs that eventually drove up prices. The four decades up the assault on the large Trusts dominating numerous markets, saw continuous improvements in wages and “deflation”, making the lives of millions of Americans better off. How come the so called monopolized Trusts did not cause higher prices and lower wages, as their opponents erroneous claimed?

      How come it was the government granted monopolies that are the ones that cause such harm to the America people?

      Look at how many government contracts are today doled out to the same military contractors, year after year. This is not by accident. It is planned theft and coercion against the tax payers by our ruling oligarchy.

      Yet there are many of you who still cling to the notion, that government is this altruistic institution that is looking out for the best interest of the majority. BS

      For god sake they are Politicians and Attorneys and they will lie directly to you face, I did not have sexual intercourse with that women”, “I’m not a crook” and “I promise to reduce the Federal Budget of the United States”; these are our Presidents, Clinton, Nixon and Reagan. You want me to get a list of the Obama lies?

  8. Civilians can sue the military for spying on them:

    In December 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the lawsuit could proceed to trial, the first time a court had ever said civilians could sue the military for damages for spying on them while engaged in activism.

    Christopher Pyle, the former Church Committee investigator, submitted an expert witness report indicating the testimony he would like to give during trial, which is currently scheduled for June 2.

    (Former Church Committee Investigator to Testify at Trial Against US Military Spying on Activists).

  9. randyjet wrote:

    “By the way, we DID have over THREE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS KILLED. I have NOT forgotten, but I see that some have.” -randyjet

    Absolutely silly, ridiculous rebuttal. And the use of caps undercuts your “argument”, as well.

    1. anon, as I said, Let me know when the number of “innocents” gets close to three thousands, then I will start to get concerned. It is not so absurd to make those who will kill us get to suffer some of our pain when their innocents get hit. At least WE are NOT intentionally trying to kill innocents as a matter of policy, unlike those who we are killing. Too bad you cannot understand the difference between murder, manslaughter, and self defense.

  11. “10 Myths About NSA Surveillance That Need Debunking

    Focusing on the legality of Edward Snowden’s actions is a distraction. Let’s face the arguments of pundits and 9/11 fear-mongers to determine what’s true and what’s not.”

    —By Peter Van Buren, Mon Jan. 13, 2014 9:32 AM GMT

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/10-myths-nsa-surveillance-debunk-edward-snowden-spying

    Excerpt:

    “10. But doesn’t protecting America come first—before anything?

    What exactly are we protecting from what? If, instead of spending trillions of dollars on spying and domestic surveillance, we had spent that same money on repairing our infrastructure and improving our schools, wouldn’t we now have a safer, stronger America? Remember that famously absurd Vietnam War quote from an American officer talking about brutal attack on Ben Tre, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”? How can anyone say we are protecting our liberty and freedom by taking it away?

    Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. A TomDispatch regular, he writes about current events at his blog, We Meant Well. Van Buren’s next book, is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent.”

  13. The more I listen to American intelligence officials, the more I edge toward Snowden

    BY Thomas E. Ricks
    JANUARY 10, 2014

    http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/10/the_more_i_listen_to_american_intelligence_officials_the_more_i_edge_toward_snowden

    “If we are to ask if Snowden damaged U.S. intelligence operations, we also need to ask how much U.S. intelligence operations damaged the United States over the last 10 years. They will tell you that there is secret evidence of all the attacks they stopped. I will tell you that there is secret evidence of all the laws they broke — or at least, there was such evidence, until the tapes were destroyed. There are a lot of people calling for accountability for Snowden who seem blind to the much larger crimes committed by U.S. intelligence officials.”

  14. randyjet:

    “Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set,” President Obama promised back in May. -from the following article

    Furthermore, were those “suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda” an imminent threat?

    “If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We’d Ground Our Fleet

    But after a dozen or more deaths at a Yemeni wedding, don’t expect anything to change.”

    by Conor Friedersdorf Dec 16 2013, 6:00 AM ET

    Excerpt:

    “CNN reported, citing government sources in Yemen. “The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured, nine in critical condition. The vehicles were traveling near the town of Radda when they were attacked.”

    Can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you’d feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?

    The L.A. Times followed up on the story and found slightly different casualty figures: “The death toll reached 17 overnight, hospital officials in central Bayda province said Friday. Five of those killed were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, but the remainder were unconnected with the militancy, Yemeni security officials said.”

    More than a dozen dead, many more injured, and an unknown number of survivors whose lives have suddenly taken a nightmarish turn the likes of which we cannot imagine, and all for the sake of five people suspected of ties to al-Qaeda. How many actual al-Qaeda terrorists would we have to kill with drones in Yemen to make the benefits of our drone war there outweigh the costs of this single catastrophic strike? If U.S. drone strikes put American wedding parties similarly at risk would we tolerate our targeted-killing program for a single day more? Our policy persists because we put little value on the lives of foreign innocents. Even putting them through the most horrific scene imaginable on their wedding day is but a blip on our media radar, easily eclipsed by a new Beyonce album.

    The Obama Administration dishonestly talks of “surgical” drone strikes, as if surgeries ever result in double digit casualties. “Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set,” President Obama promised back in May. The CNN story about this latest strike says, “The convoy consisted of 11 vehicles, and the officials said that four of the vehicles were targeted in the strikes.” Is attempting to pick off alleged militants while in a wedding convoy with innocents the highest standard we can set to avoid civilian deaths? If so, the results speak for themselves.

    End of excerpt

    Were those “suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda” an imminent threat? If so, we should know. Instead, all we’ve heard is a “no comment”. And then there’s the issue of radicalization related to our policies.

    randyjet:

    “Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set,” President Obama promised back in May. -from the following article
    Were those “suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda” an imminent threat?

    “If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We’d Ground Our Fleet

    But after a dozen or more deaths at a Yemeni wedding, don’t expect anything to change.”

    by Conor Friedersdorf Dec 16 2013, 6:00 AM ET

    Excerpt:

    “CNN reported, citing government sources in Yemen. “The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured, nine in critical condition. The vehicles were traveling near the town of Radda when they were attacked.”

    Can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you’d feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?

    The L.A. Times followed up on the story and found slightly different casualty figures: “The death toll reached 17 overnight, hospital officials in central Bayda province said Friday. Five of those killed were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, but the remainder were unconnected with the militancy, Yemeni security officials said.”

    More than a dozen dead, many more injured, and an unknown number of survivors whose lives have suddenly taken a nightmarish turn the likes of which we cannot imagine, and all for the sake of five people suspected of ties to al-Qaeda. How many actual al-Qaeda terrorists would we have to kill with drones in Yemen to make the benefits of our drone war there outweigh the costs of this single catastrophic strike? If U.S. drone strikes put American wedding parties similarly at risk would we tolerate our targeted-killing program for a single day more? Our policy persists because we put little value on the lives of foreign innocents. Even putting them through the most horrific scene imaginable on their wedding day is but a blip on our media radar, easily eclipsed by a new Beyonce album.

    The Obama Administration dishonestly talks of “surgical” drone strikes, as if surgeries ever result in double digit casualties. “Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set,” President Obama promised back in May. The CNN story about this latest strike says, “The convoy consisted of 11 vehicles, and the officials said that four of the vehicles were targeted in the strikes.” Is attempting to pick off alleged militants while in a wedding convoy with innocents the highest standard we can set to avoid civilian deaths? If so, the results speak for themselves.

    End of excerpt

    1. anonpost, I am not for killing civilians just for the hell of it, BUT if you invite Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, et al.. to your wedding during WWII, I think that the USAAF had the right to blow the hell out of that wedding. Especially if they knew that they would all be there out of their bunkers and easy targets. Crying that innocents were killed is disingenuous to say the least.

      Before 9/11 and after hundreds of Africans were murdered in the US embassy bombings is Africa, the CIA had intel that Bin Laden would be in his camp and ripe for bombing. Unfortunately, they also discovered that an official from the UAE was there to do some hunting with Bin Laden, so they did not pull the trigger for fear of also killing a member of a friendly government. They put off the strike for another time to avoid killing others. When they finally did get a clear place, and time for the shot, they missed him by 30 min. I think that NOT shooting was wrong the first time.

      If there were Americans in a wedding party in Yemen that had a similar number of terrorists as part of the party, I most certainly would NOT object either. By the way, we DID have over THREE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS KILLED. I have NOT forgotten, but I see that some have. They were not terrorists or legitimate targets. Let me know when the numbers of innocents killed in strikes like this come close to three thousands, THEN I will only start to be concerned.

  16. rafflaw,

    I have another one hanging out there now — a link to a Bruce Schneier piece. Sorry about the duplication — I wanted to see what would post and what pieces of the comments might be hanging them up in moderation. It’s a useful exercise, but makes for a bit of a mess, once comments have been freed. Anyway, thanks. And thanks for staying with this topic in various ways.

  18. Excerpts from the Hedges piece:

    “New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has been Wall Street’s anointed son for the presidency. He is backed by the most ruthless and corrupt figures in New Jersey politics, including the New Jersey multimillionaire and hard-line Democratic boss George Norcross III. Among his other supporters are many hedge fund managers and corporate executives and some of the nation’s most retrograde billionaires, including the Koch brothers. The brewing scandal over the closing of traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge apparently in retaliation for the Fort Lee mayor’s refusal to support the governor’s 2013 re-election is a window into how federal agencies and the security and surveillance apparatus would be routinely employed in a Christie presidency to punish anyone who challenged this tiny cabal’s grip on power.

    …

    The visceral need by Christie to ridicule and threaten anyone who does not bow before him, his dark lust for revenge, his greed, gluttony and hedonism, his need to surround himself with large, fawning entourages and his obsequiousness to corporate power are characteristics our corporate titans embrace and understand. They see in Christie versions of themselves. They know he will enthusiastically do their dirty work. They trust him to be a real bastard. If Christie and the billionaires behind him take the presidency and begin to manipulate government agencies and pull the levers of our Stasi-like security and surveillance apparatus, any pretense of democracy will be gone.”

  20. A comment of mine has gone into moderation. Would someone have the time to post it? Thanks, in advance.

Comments are closed.