February 29, 2008
WEB EXCLUSIVE: RICK KARR ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY
RICK KARR: You may not know James Risen's name, but you probably know his work: He's one of the NEW YORK TIMES reporters who broke the story of the Bush administration listening in to phone calls and reading email, without search warrants. That story infuriated some conservatives. A popular blog accused Risen and his co-author of treason for revealing sensitive information, and pundit William Bennett said the reporters deserved jail time.
Bennett may get his wish. A federal prosecutor has asked a grand jury to look into a book that Risen wrote. It details not only warrantless wiretapping but also how, when it came to covert operations in the Middle East, the Administration made "mistake piled on mistake" caused an "espionage disaster" and was "operating in the blind" when it came to Iran.
Risen was subpoenaed to tell a grand jury who he talked to about Iran — in other words, to reveal his anonymous sources. So far, the reporter has refused to talk. And recently, his lawyer moved to quash the subpoena. Some veteran investigative journalists wrote letters in support of that motion. One of them told me that if Risen is forced to testify, the public will be the real loser. Here's why: Anonymous sources have a lot to lose if their identities are revealed because a lot of them are powerful or prominent. So, if the Federal government can force a reporter like Risen to reveal their identities, those sources will clam up. There'd be more corruption and wrongdoing in Washington that the public would never learn about.
Administration officials seem not to mind keeping the public in the dark.
But for muckrakers and whistleblowers, it's getting harder and harder to expose corruption and wrongdoing.
Take the case of former FBI agent Sibel Edmonds: She blew the whistle on massive incompetence at the Bureau — sloppy translations, missed messages from terror suspects. She even alleged that insiders were leaking secrets to foreign agents. She lost her job for it.
Just after Congress got interested in her story — and a bipartisan group of Senators said they found her claims credible enough to warrant an investigation — the administration retroactively classified everything that she knew, pretty much shutting down any chance of an investigation. U.S. journalists have found it nearly impossible to look into her claims. Over the past year, there's been only one article on her in a major newspaper, and it simply announced that she'd won a freedom-of-speech award. Meanwhile, the TIMES OF LONDON has published three stories — just this year — digging into her claim that Administration officials sold secrets to foreign governments.
Sometimes the Administration's efforts to squelch critics seem downright petty: Reporters for the Web site TALKING POINTS MEMO, for example, led the way in showing how the Administration encouraged federal prosecutors to go after Democrats, but go easy on Republicans. So the Department of Justice kicked the web site off of its press list. A small thing, sure, but it rankled one member of the House enough that he asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey about it at a hearing. Mukasey's response? "I don't know."
Recently, the Department of Justice reinstated TALKING POINTS MEMO to its press list — right around the same time that the web site won an award for its reporting on the Department of Justice.
So, Administration officials stonewall lawmakers and try to silence critics — or just make their jobs harder. That's not news. But this time, a reporter could go to jail. The irony in James Risen's predicament is that he was one of the reporters who revealed that the Administration could never have secretly listened in on phone calls, or read emails, without help from big telecom firms — the conglomerates that supply most Americans with phone or Internet service. After the article appeared, civil-liberties advocates filed lawsuits against the conglomerates trying to hold them accountable for helping the Administration break the law. Just recently, the Senate voted to grant those telecom companies immunity from the lawsuits — to let them off the hook — while the reporter who'd exposed them fought to stay out of jail.
Rick Karr is a correspondent for BILL MOYERS JOURNAL.
VIDEO
Comments (12)
jc wrote:This is just more bullshit spin from Bush. They could easily be tried under war crimes statutes.
No matter how much Bush & Cheney hate it, those Geneva Conventions do apply.
UnkleBry:We keep hearing how "the State Department" did this or that. No, State Department employees did this or that. Congress should demand the names of each individual involved and demand prosecution of them. They are subject to U.S. law. Lower levels would quickly turn on upper levels and we'd see how high up the coverup goes.
In addition, Congress should refuse to pay Blackwater's bills and cancel all existing contracts. Let them fight it out in court, with depositions under oath etc.
Billy Pilgrim:But of course Congress will do nothing.
Thank you jc for that reminder. Although murder for sport by Blackwater is protected under Bush administration policy, the rest of the world may not agree Blackwater has the right to randomly slaughter civilians.
Billy Pilgrim:Why is the being considered as a purely internal matter? Why isn't this case being brought before an international court where it more appropriately belongs?
nofltwlt:So what? They deserve to be prosecuted. The negative publicity will do the GOP well - for Americans.
marc:There is a simple and elegant solution to DOJ's problem. Wave immunity and turn Blackwater's employees over to the Iraqis. If this were a real possibility the speed in which Blackwaters shooters would start a circular firing squad to pass blame would be astounding. Also if DOJ really does have no bases for prosecution, under any jurisdiction, than it would be only the right thing to do for the sake of justice and the rule of law. Of course we are not really serious about freedom and democracy in Iraq. It's the oil stupid!
steambomb:No matter how much Bush & Cheney hate it, those Geneva Conventions do apply.
No matter how much Bush & Cheney hate it, those Geneva Conventions do apply.
JC, That statement cannot be voiced enough. Are we part of the world community or not. Globalist sure seem to think so when it suits their economic needs. Seems a pity to have a double standard when it comes to murder and war crimes.
JMOHR:I am waiting for the trolls to start on how horrible it is that we should condemn these wonderfull Americans prior to their trial and the finding of theri guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
We need to press for action against this contractor. A criminal prosecution may be an appropriate remedy. However, it is unlikely. Disbarment from federal contracts and other contractual remedies are not out of the question. Indeed, the destruction of evidence, claims of sexual harassment and fraudulent billing practices would easily support the disbarrment of this contractor.
hope4usa:Fine can't prosecute them....eliminate them as a contractor of any kind from Federally funded programs. They'll go out of business.
Persona non grata:Blackwater security guards
You mean mercenaries.
Geneva Not Applicable?:Link "Geneva Not Applicable" discusses at length a legal theory to prosecute Blackwater under the principle of "higher duty" or "clear and present responsibility" under Geneva. If the US will not enforce Geneva, then Blackwater employees should have known they were acting outside Geneva, not complying with the laws of war, and all information they gave could not enjoy any protections of that legal system they were not fully operating.
If the US will not enforce Geneva against Blackwater -- regardless the holes in US law -- then the US is sending a mixed signal: Those operating outside the law during interrogations can use evidence to prosecute; while those acting outside the law during combat can be immune from prosecution. This appears to tell the world: The US is not fully enforcing Geneva; and those acting outside the protections recognized at Nuremberg are impermissibly relying on legal principles they openly defy.
The solution may be for the US to decline prosecution because the US is not willing to fully enforce Geneva; but turn the Blackwater contractors over to the ICC. MCA would provide full legal costs to Blackwater, regardless the trial verdict.
MaryWell, under the Mr. B's CPA Order, isn't all that is needed is for the US to defer back to Iraq? I think that is spelled out in the Order, that it is not an order that confers benefit directly on the contractors and the sponsoring country can waive their rights and allow Iraq to have jurisdiction.
If the contractors have returned to the US, then in addition to deferring to Iraq, we can extradite the individuals back.
See - problem solved. If Iraq's Ministry of Justice is looking for interrogation guidelines, apparently the Bybee Memo translates well.