Obama Is Tough On Leakers – Obviously, Liberals Have A Problem With This

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Obama Is Tough On Leakers – Obviously, Liberals Have A Problem With This

Written By : William Teach

This morning, the Politico has a story up regarding Obama’s tough stance towards leakers of secret material, one of the few things in which I actually agree with Mr. Obama. Previously, President Bush tended to ignore the leakers, when he should have been prosecuting them to the extent of the law. Obama? He and his administration are pushing hard to beat them like a rented mule

The Obama administration, which famously pledged to be the most transparent in American history, is pursuing an unexpectedly aggressive legal offensive against federal workers who leak secret information to expose wrongdoing, highlight national security threats or pursue a personal agenda.

Notice how The Politico puts this in the worst possible light. People who leak national security material are not the good guys: they are people who endanger programs that protect the United States. Interestingly, The Politico, like so many other players in the MSM, have ignored a good chunk of Obama’s actual failure to be transparent.

In just over two years since President Barack Obama took office, prosecutors have filed criminal charges in five separate cases involving unauthorized distribution of classified national security information to the media. And the government is now mulling what would be the most high-profile case of them all – prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Obviously, some people have a problem with this

The government insists it’s only pursuing individuals who act with reckless disregard for national security, and that it has an obligation to protect the nation’s most sensitive secrets from being revealed. Anyone seeking to expose malfeasance has ample opportunity to do so through proper channels, government lawyers say.

But legal experts and good-government advocates say the hard-line approach to leaks has a chilling effect on whistleblowers, who fear harsh legal reprisals if they dare to speak up.

Not only that, these advocates say, it runs counter to Obama’s pledges of openness by making it a crime to shine a light on the inner workings of government – especially when there are measures that could protect the nation’s interests without hauling journalists into court and government officials off to jail.

“It is not to me a good sign when government chooses to go after leakers using the full force of criminal law when there are other ways to handle these situations,” said Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota law professor and former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “Of course, the government has to have some kind of remedy, [but] I’d certainly hope they’re being very selective about these prosecutions.”

These people are not “whistleblowers.” They aren’t do-gooders. This is not about openness and transparency. It is about protecting American programs that provide security, and which our enemies should not be privy to.

Liberals will surely disagree: they tend to think that any program under that protects the United States, especially against Muslim terrorists, should be readily available for all to see.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Anonymous

We have a whistleblower for Federal agencies and the military. It’s called CONGRESS. They not only have the access, but the responsibility to provide oversight for executive bodies.

The process broke down because Bush was being dogged by liberal surrogates in the media, while sitting Democrats in Congress claimed ignorance of programs they had full knowledge of so they could play politics and cover their sorry asses. Bush never called them on it, apparently believing that the appearance of a coverup was worse than allowing the leaks. Obama, with a lapdog media that dares not criticize him, has no such worries.
Anonymous

We are at war – execute the traitors.
Anonymous

So is it fair to call him Hitler now?
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I agree, Bush failed utterly on this by failing to go after leakers. He was in charge of the executive department, the highest law enforcement official in the nation, and he didn’t nail these guys. Good for Obama, step on all the cockroaches.
D-Vega

There is a big difference between leaking information on what the gov’t is doing just because it’s secret, and releasing information on what the gov’t is doing because it’s illegal.

If our gov’t is doing something horrible and wrong, there should be a system in place where someone can report that, even if it’s in the press.

But when someone releases information just for the sake of, and could put people’s lives in jeopardy, then of course there should be full prosecution.

These people know full well the crime they are committing by releasing such information.

Anonymous

Good for you, Vega. You got another one right. Like point added.

But you are a voice of reason (at least on this topic) in a sea of idiocy.

The problem of course is far too many of those on your side of the fence buy into the whole “noble rebel” myth and lionize anyone they consider to be an under-dog or is seen as fighting authority withgout really caring what those people actually are or what they believe or do. Kiddies with Che’ t-shirts anyone? The otther issue is that far too many on your side hate the US and are willing to support anyone and anything to bring it down a notch.

TR

D-Vega

There are a lot of people that want all of this secret stuff out in the open, because we as the public have a right to know.

They have a right to believe that, and that’s also why the press will always print it. And we cannot put the blame on the press because it’s their duty to find stories and publish them.

However, the leakers are a different story. They are not journalists or activists. They join agencies or the military with not only a full understanding of what their duty is, but they also take a pledge not to reveal this stuff under penalty of prison.

Once they cross that line, they expect to go to prison for a long time.

The information released on Wikileaks was almost shockingly boring. The US isn’t assasinating people, or committing illegals acts. At the very worst, we are dishonest in public. That doesn’t compare to the exposure Wikileaks cost our informants in very dangerous places. If their entire families were killed because of Wikileaks, who do we hold accountable?

But, if what the gov’t is doing is illegal or horrible, like the Abu Ghraib abuses for example, I see nothing wrong with exposing such behavior to the public.

Even though it may hurt the gov’t's or military’s repuation, they shouldn’t be doing stuff like that in the first place.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The problem is when political ideology rather than objective truth drives these people. People can leak “for the good of us all” simply because they don’t like what the government is doing, not necessarily because what the government is doing is so wrong. That happened a lot in the Bush administration.

D-Vega

And thery figured Obama would stop secret stuff, when none of us really knows what the President knows, and what he feels needs to be done.

The best thing we can possibly do is improve the quality of our people, and make sure they understand the consequences of revealing classified information.

Anonymous

I don’t think you would have said when Bush was in white house. I could be wrong, I am judging this based on your comments.

No matter who is in power, people have a right to know. Obama is not an exception.

D-Vega

I did say the same thing, except when it came Abu Ghraib abuses or using black sites to torture people.

The press has the right to publish it, but the people DO NOT have the right to know. Unless it is illegal.
Anonymous

How do we know it’s illegal until after it comes out?

You can’t simply ask people to forget what they’ve heard.

Also, are you advocating censoring the media?

/you see why it can be aggravating to be a conservative right? We spent a decade saying these exact same things and you called us nazis. Then when your guy is in charge you repeat them as if it were some amazing new insight into geo-politics.
D-Vega

How do we know it’s illegal until after it comes out?

I think it’s pretty plain to see what’s illegal and what isn’t.

You can’t simply ask people to forget what they’ve heard.Also, are you advocating censoring the media?

No, that’s why you have to prosecute the leakers. If the information is so dire, they won’t mind taking the charge.

/you see why it can be aggravating to be a conservative right? We spent a decade saying these exact same things and you called us nazis. Then when your guy is in charge you repeat them as if it were some amazing new insight into geo-politics.

For one, it depends on the issue. Secondly, you can’t blame the press for publishing the information.

The blame is on the leakers themselves. If they are revealing information that the gov’t is breaking the law, then let them reveal their information in the press and let the chips fall where they may.

But the kind of stuff being published by Wikileaks is not newsworthy or shocking. If anything, Wikileaks and the AMOUNT of information leaked is the big story.

If this information was so important to the public’s right-to-know, then why can’t I off the top of my head remember anything big from the document dump?
Anonymous

Secondly, you can’t blame the press for publishing the information.

Sure you can.
Sometimes the US press tends to forget they are Americans as well as journalists. US citizens is what they are. Members of the press is what their job is. They often forget this and buy into the mistaken notion that they are some extra branch of the goverment tasked with keeping all the others in line. Their job is to report events and keep the public informed.
I suppose it’s a natural tendency for people to come to believe that they are more important than they actually are. But in the case of the press, this impulse is often taken to an extreme.

TR
Anonymous

No matter who is in power, people have a right to know

No they don’t, channer kiddie. There is such a thing as a state secret. The public has a right to know the general course of events, but does NOT have the right to know every detail. This is especially the case with sensitive material or military secrets. To use a well known and much discussed example, would a newspaper in 1944 been right in printing the localtion of the Normandy Invasion? of course not. Would the media been in the wrong, for example, had they printed the fact that the British had broken the German Enigma code? Of course. Granted these are extreme examples, but the general principle still remains: the public does not have the right to know everything and it is in fact destructive to think that they do.

TR
Anonymous

You can spin the argument Ab Absurdum as you wish. Have Asange ever leaked any military secret that revealed battle plans? Never. Have you actually heard his interview and his take on what he thinks is permissible to leak or not? I don’t think you have, otherwise you would not say stupid shit like that.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

People have a right to know some things and not others. Secrets have value, even state secrets. If you are such a filthy, worthless coward that you cannot keep a secret, then I pity you but the rest of us understand that is a trust and a sign of a real relationship.

Anonymous

I don’t think you would have said when Bush was in white house. I could be wrong, I am judging this based on your comments.

No matter who is in power, people have a right to know. Obama is not an exception.
Anonymous

And thery figured Obama would stop secret stuff, when none of us really knows what the President knows, and what he feels needs to be done.

What a difference an election makes.

2001-2008: tell us everything that is going on you nazi!
2009-2012: well I think we should just trust the president to tell us what we need to know. A lot of that stuff is kept secret for a reason.

D-Vega

I want to know if Obama is torturing people, too.
Anonymous

So you could blame it on Bush?
D-Vega

So you could blame it on Bush?

No, Bush is to-blame enough for the things that happened under his watch.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

He is not torturing anyone any more than Bush did. However, the US is continuing the same information gathering policies and techniques it has for probably more than a century that you probably would consider torture, at least if a Republican is in charge.

Anonymous

Well, you don’t mind FSB secrets to be leaked out do you? I am sure that some Russian blogger would be happy for CIA files to be released somewhere.

The issue is not that wikileaks all of a sudden create a portal for FSB into secrets of CIA, or wise versa. Both camps know exactly what the other is doing, many times before the majority within its respective agency know that particular secret.

Wikileaks is simply letting public know what the government is doing, in a democracy it is a good thing.

Who is the enemy here? The citizens that are protected by the agency? The consumers of the product that the company makes? Or the agency or the corporation that conducts illegal activity?

D-Vega

I have yet to see anything revealed in Wikileaks that shows the U.S. gov’t doing anything illegal.

Wikileaks is not the hero here, as they are doing something without having to face any consequences.

What happens if someone is killed because of what they revealed? Is it the U.S. gov’t's fault? I think not.

Anonymous

According to julian assmunch they’re “collateral damage” In regards to your first post I may be wrong but isn’t there already a program in place for legitmate(sp?) whistleblowers to turn to in case they need to report illegal activities?
D-Vega

It would depend on the issue.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, the person who blew the whistle felt that going through the chain-of-command would get the story buried.

But in that case, it wasn’t really classified information.
D-Vega

It would depend on the issue.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, the person who blew the whistle felt that going through the chain-of-command would get the story buried.

But in that case, it wasn’t really classified information.
D-Vega

It would depend on the issue.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, the person who blew the whistle felt that going through the chain-of-command would get the story buried.

But in that case, it wasn’t really classified information.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Julian Assange claims that people have already been killed because of his work, but he figures wikileaks does so much good its okay.
D-Vega

Julian Assange is a POS for making such a phony statement to justify his position.

It was important to let the public know about Abu Ghraib.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

It was important to let the public know about Abu Ghraib.

Why? It caused a great deal of harm in morale, emboldened our enemies resulting in many more deaths and time before we got Iraq under control, and made people distrust America more. Who, exactly was the winner here?

Not us.

Assange claims that his leaks during the Kenya rebellion caused tens of thousands of deaths. He may be right, but I don’t know who else you’d trust to confirm that wikileaks has caused deaths. In Afghanistan informers he named were killed. It absolutely has killed people.

Martin Hale

The issue is not that wikileaks all of a sudden create a portal for FSB into secrets of CIA, or wise versa. Both camps know exactly what the other is doing, many times before the majority within its respective agency know that particular secret.

A few points:

1. For nations like Russia and China, yes, it’s likely that they know a lot about our plans and what we’re doing. But, that said, they don’t know it all, and a good part of what they do know is in the form of supposition, not facts. Wikileaks, I’m sure, cleared up a lot of doubts they had and confirmed for them who on our side is a real player and who isn’t.

I don’t think, however, that prior to the WikiLeaks release most other nations in the world had a comprehensive knowledge of what we’re up to. It’s not that other countries don’t engage in espionage, it’s that they don’t have the resources that the big players on the international scene do. While the Chinese might be able to succeed in getting agents into the NSA, I doubt that Zimbabwe, Brazil or Venezuela can.

2. If I might, I’d like to put forth the idea that the damage of the Wikileaks revelations is not so much that they reveal what we’re doing, but rather that they reveal what we know about what other nations are doing and how we found it out. They reveal a lot about relationships, personalities, motives, personal weaknesses and internal conflicts.

A major part of the work of diplomacy is in developing a network of contacts and understanding within that network who you can trust and what you can trust about them. It’s largely through those relationships that diplomacy is accomplished. To the extent that the Wikileaks revelations laid a lot of that information bare, they did real harm to our ability to accomplish the work of diplomacy.

3. The problem with having someone like Mr. Assange decide what gets revealed is that he’s not privy to the relative importance of any of the revelations he’s making – he operates under a presupposition that all of the ‘secrets’ are of roughly equal importance, which they’re not. I’m all for more transparency in governance, but I’m also willing to acknowledge that there is a legitimate need for some secrets in the conduct of both foreign and internal affairs and that it’s not up to any outsider to the process to determine which secrets can be revealed and which can’t.

4 Lastly, as I’ve said before, it’s absolutely no surprise that Mr. Assange has only released a substantive amount of American ‘secrets’ and not those of nations like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. Why? Because he can be very confident that the worst that we would do to him is pursue him in the courts. If he had released a tranche of a similar size of Chinese diplomatic secrets, I”m pretty sure he would have already disappeared, and not by his own doing. While he says that secrets about other countries are coming, I’ll believe that when I see it. I don’t think Mr. Assange is so blinded by his own ego and his socio-political dogma that he’d risk putting out a bunch of purloined North Korean documents, if he had them to release.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

No, I don’t want FSB secrets leaked to the public either. I wouldn’t mind the CIA knowing them, although as incompetent and hapless as the CIA has been over the years I’m not sure it would make any difference.

Martin Hale

Ms. Kirtley is just one more example of why I think this country is suffering from a glut of lawyers and legal opinions. Put enough lawyers in a room and whatever was going on in that room will eventually grind to a halt as they argue ever-finer points of legal abstraction.

Obviously I have respect for the institution of legal representation – if I didn’t, I wasted plenty of time and money attaining a JD. But there are limits and there has to be balance between the pursuit of legal principles and the need to get things done in the real world. Somehow, I doubt that Ms. Kirtley and her ilk really grasp that in a truly operational sense.

StanW

When people demand I give them an answer to a question they have posed, I always ask, “Do you want the Accountants answer or the Lawyers answer?”The Accountants answer is always “What do you want it to be?”The Lawyers answer is always “Well, it depends…”Shakespear was right about lawyers! ;)
StanW

When people demand I give them an answer to a question they have posed, I always ask, “Do you want the Accountants answer or the Lawyers answer?”The Accountants answer is always “What do you want it to be?”The Lawyers answer is always “Well, it depends…”Shakespear was right about lawyers! ;)
StanW

When people demand I give them an answer to a question they have posed, I always ask, “Do you want the Accountants answer or the Lawyers answer?”The Accountants answer is always “What do you want it to be?”The Lawyers answer is always “Well, it depends…”Shakespear was right about lawyers! ;)
Anonymous

I agree with that: “Ms. Kirtley is just one more example of why I think this country is suffering from a glut of lawyers and legal opinions. Put enough lawyers in a room and whatever was going on in that room will eventually grind to a halt as they argue ever-finer points of legal abstraction.”

Suing EVERYTHING for EVERYTHING is a complete abuse of the profession. People view medical lawsuits as lottery tickets.

Anonymous

If this is true that Obama has gotten tough on leakers, then that is about the third thing he has done in the last two years I agree with.

TR

Anonymous

Maybe he is trying to cover up his Kenyan birth and email correspondence with Satan?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I don’t know why you would be so stupid as to think he was born in Kenya, do you think 9/11 was some vast conspiracy too, you imbecile?

Anonymous

This little boy is a 4chan kiddie, CT. Thus by definition he’s an imbecile. Who knows what he believes…

TR

Anonymous

You hear that “wooshing” sound, 4chan kiddie? That’s the sound of the pretense that you are interested in anything resembling a rational and civil dicussion flying out the window right about now.

Welcome to being treated like a troll….

Well, that didn’t take long did it, folks? Of course I took one look at his avatar and that told me everything I needed to know about this kid.

TR

Anonymous

Just what variety of leaks are the ones Pres. B. Hussein Obama is referring to, military and National Security, or leaks about the wrongdoings of him and his fellow Chicago Mob puppets?
Anonymous

If Journalists would be doing their jobs, there would not be a need for wikileaks. Why wouldn’t you want to know if some Corporation cutting corners by providing an inferior product? Or a government that is lying to its people? Like Vega said, there are secrets that should be kept secret, then there are some that should be exposed without any doubt. Its not like Wikileaks are a partisan group and is focusing on a particular person or group.
Asange is doing a good thing for the world.

Anonymous

Its not like Wikileaks are a partisan grou

Oh please.
Asange is a hacker kiddie with an anti-authority figure grudge who grew up. (physically anyway) He’s a leftist who sufferes from that classic hate of the “system” and is lashing out against it. Sure, he’s not just going after the US. But to say it’s not a partisan group is absurd.

Asange is doing a good thing for the world.

You are out of your mind.

TR
D-Vega

The distinction is that Wikileaks is not following any set of ethics and therefore accountability.

They don’t look at any secret as something that should be kept secret. Even redacting informants’ names.

Anonymous

Maybe some journalists in the MSM can cover this story.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/palins-gun-toting-stalker-arrested-50-miles-from-her-home-in-alaska/

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN