A Double Standard on Leaks? As Whistleblowers Jailed, Petraeus Escapes Prison & Advises White House

[KoKo]

"Democracy Now" Devotes broadcast to Investigation with Whistleblower Lawyers. Video and Transcript:

With prosecutions of whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and several others, the Obama administration is by far the most aggressive in history when it comes to punishing leaks. But is there a double standard when it comes to who is punished and who walks free? That is the question being raised after a lenient plea deal for David Petraeus, the retired four-star general and former head of the CIA. Unlike the others, Petraeus did not release information to expose perceived government wrongdoing. Instead, Petraeus gave classified material to his girlfriend, Paula Broadwell, who was writing his biography. Petraeus let Broadwell access his CIA email account and other sensitive material, including the names of covert operatives in Afghanistan, war strategies, and quotes from White House meetings.

Earlier this month, he reached a plea deal, admitting to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. Prosecutors will not seek prison time, but instead two years probation and a fine. He remains an administration insider, advising the White House on the war against ISIS. We speak to Jesselyn Radack, National Security & Human Rights director at the Government Accountability Project. A former ethics adviser to the U.S. Department of Justice, Radackis the lawyer for Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou — three whistleblowers all charged under the Espionage Act. She recently wrote an article for Foreign Policy magazine, "Petraeus, Snowden, and the Department of Two-Tiered Justice."


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

Transcript

AARON MATÉ: With prosecutions of whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and several others, the Obama administration is by far the most aggressive in history when it comes to punishing leaks. But is there a double standard when it comes to who is punished and who walks free?

That’s the question being raised after a lenient plea deal for David Petraeus, the retired four-star general and former head of the CIA. Unlike the others, Petraeus did not release information to expose perceived government wrongdoing. Instead, he gave classified material to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, who was also writing his biography. Petraeus let Broadwell access his CIA email account and other sensitive material, including the names of covert operatives in Afghanistan, war strategy, and quotes from White House meetings. Petraeus then lied to the FBI, telling investigators he never gave Broadwell any classified information.

After an investigation that raised eyebrows for its slow pace, the FBI and federal prosecutors recommended felony charges. But unlike other leakers, Petraeus was not indicted. Instead, earlier this month, he reached a plea deal, admitting to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. Prosecutors won’t seek prison time, but instead two years probation and a fine. His sentencing is next month. Meanwhile, after being forced to resign in 2012, Petraeus remains an administration insider, advising the White House on the war against ISIS.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended the administration’s ongoing consultations with Petraeus.

-------snip-----------

The lenient treatment of Petraeus falls in line with similar responses to leaks from other administration insiders. CIA Director Leon Panetta helped provide secret information to the filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty, the Hollywood film about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but never faced punishment. And just last week, it emerged that a long-running investigation of a former top-ranking Pentagon general for leaking the information that publicly exposed a U.S. cyberwarfare operation against Iran has stalled. According to The Washington Post, General James Cartwright had authorization to speak to reporters, and defense attorneys, quote, "might try to put the White House’s relationship with reporters and the use of authorized leaks on display, creating a potentially embarrassing distraction for the administration," unquote.

Video Interviews this Investigation and a Full Transcript for those who can't do Video at:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/17/a_double_standard_on_leaks_as

[Thinkingabout]

1. Petraeus has face justice as many others, Snowden did not.

There are differences in the fact the information was not released publicly the others did. Was Petraeus charged with espionage?

[Romeo.lima333]

2. so where's the petiton to jail patreaus

[KoKo]

14. Don't know about a petition but hopefully one of the Human Rights Groups

will find a way to hold him accountable...

[randome]

3. Did Petraeus steal millions of documents he didn't read...

...run off to another country and give his documents away to foreign nationals and corporate media interests?

I agree Petraeus should not be in an advisory role at all but the two cases are not at all similar.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

6. Let's see, whistleblower Drake works the geek desk at an Apple Store

(he was also an expert in his field)

Manning tortured and imprisoned for 30 years. The treatment of Kiriakou, Binney etc etc

And then there's Petraeus advising the President....

Hmm, exactly how are these cases similar?

Oh right!

Petraeus gave classified documents in exchange for sex while Drake (Snowden, Binney, Manning etc) did it to expose government malfeasance... Each of them just getting their "just" rewards....

[randome]

7. Most of Drake's persecution was done in the Bush Era, although it's true...

...that Obama did not reverse any of the proceedings against him until they finally offered to let him plead to a misdemeanor.

However, his complaint about Trailblazer over ThinThread, while legitimate in terms of cost, did not overrule the NSA's decision of one over the other. There was no evidence to suggest that contracts were awarded illegitimately, which would have been the essence of whistleblowing.

Drake's concerns about privacy were simply over-ruled. Again, there was no evidence that his privacy concerns were ignored or that Trailblazer was used for illicit purposes.

So his whistleblowing amounted to not agreeing with the cost. And since Trailblazer had capabilities that ThinThread did not, it becomes a matter of the higher ups making a decision he did not agree with.

At least that's how I see it.

Manning was a loon, having punched his commanding officer and being found in a fetal position after carving the words 'I want' into a chair. He had -and probably still has- issues that influenced him. He was definitely no whistleblower.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

8. Drake is working at an Apple Store. Petraeus is lunching with Obama

that's the point of the OP.

There are two levels of justice and your deliberate attempts to obfuscate that point aren't lost on anyone. Manning's treatment alone provides a compelling case for why ANYONE blowing the whistle should run. Run as fast and as far as possible...




(Rider walks off in disgust. Should know better than to get into this with certain posters)

[randome]

9. My point is that many of those you hold up as whistleblowers are not.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SwuCxfZn_kEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=whistleblowers+who+succeeded&source=bl&ots=PyrFSjeSwH&sig=CLNDO0qRqEb7Dt2ACYin_CGgkQ8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lpQJVcHpH67dsATo14CwBQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=whistleblowers%20who%20succeeded&f=false

For example, some critics suggested that whistleblowers' "motives range from putrid to pure. While some are impelled by an acute sense of justice or public concern, others are like ants longing to be grasshoppers."

Not trying to start an argument, only pointing out that motive matters and often the motive is to be a hero first, and right a wrong second.

Petraeus didn't try to subvert the system. He didn't turn into a virtual spy for another country. A whistleblower who betrays his country is not a whistleblower.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

4. Two tiers of justice! It's so obvious and disgusting

Petraeus did it for his dick. The others did it to expose government malfeasance.

[JEB]

10. Petraeus is no whistle blower.

Corrupt, privileged and entitled part of the problem with this country.

[BrotherIvan]

11. Good catch

Those who leaked did it to inform the public. But Patraeus did it to impress his mistress. But connections never die in this country. And the promise of transparency, cleaning up corruption, and getting rid of lobbyists was just that, a campaign promise. No need to actually do it, right?

[riderinthestorm]

12. Petraeus has lost his security clearance. He's not in a position to "advise" anymore

this stinks of keeping him in the fold and protected.

There are certainly plenty of active participants in the Iraq mess right now, who are far more capable of giving "advice" than Petraeus.

[BrotherIvan]

13. And 99% are Republicans

Because Democrats always fall for the myth that only Republicans understand the military. So that's why Bush appointees are still in the administration. Curiouser and curiouser.