and deliberate misinformation at worst.

"Kiriakou, who did not witness the waterboarding, said... it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to extract answers to an interrogator's questions from Abu Zubaydah.

...He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably 30, 35 seconds...and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.

Eventually it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times, and that little or no useful extra information may have been gained by "harsh methods".

Objective reading of the entry would seem to point out that he was, at worst misinformed, about how many times Zubaydah was water-boarding. I don't see any reason reasonable motivation for him to "lie" and claim there was only one instance of water-boarding when being able to say that there were 83 instances of it would've been far more damning of the CIA.

Did I miss something?

He wasn't "whistleblowing" in the sense of saying "look at the bad things we're doing".

He was involved in a limited hangout that said that waterboarding was so good they only had to do it once and then Abu Zubaydah was singing like a canary. It was a massive lie.

Now, that's a separate issue than whether he should have gone to prison or not but Kiriakou is not a heroic "whistleblower", he was carrying water for the policy.

some control over the leak investigation:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/20/212378/zero-dark-thirty-leak-investigators.html

Clapper should have said he can't answer in an unclassified forum, but he chose to lie.

and Paul Ryan!

it would be inappropriate for the President to presume to defend the prerogatives of the Senate

President Obama has every right, and quite frankly every obligation, to fire members of his staff who lie to Congress while under oath, which is what Clapper did.

Or such an official act by any of its committees?

Or even just a "dear colleague" letter, signed by a considerable subset of the Senators, indicating such a sentiment among a sizable minority?

It is not the task of the Executive to discern the stance of the Senate, or the views of its various members, by exercising some extra-sensory perception

Clapper was directly asked if the government was doing A, he stated, categorically that the government was not doing A, it turns out the government was doing A. Despite the passage of months he did nothing to correct the record until Mr. Snowden showed the government was, in fact, doing A. The man Cheney shot was OK with having been shot, does that mean it is OK that Cheney got away with it. Permitting his employees to lie under oath sets a horrible example, regardless of how many, or how few, letters are sent to him about the matter.

the Talmud has nothing whatsoever to do with that

plenty of wife batters are prosecuted over the strenuous objections of their wives every day.

as it relegates all responsibility for oversight of Executive agencies to the Executive itself

Our system makes Congress one of the branches of the government and mostly leaves to politics the task of sorting out the inevitable power struggles, including questions of whether or not the Executive adequately informs Congress about operations

If Congress considers itself inadequately informed, or misinformed, or misled, it is the task of Congress to formulate appropriate response

And if you find Congressional inaction not to your taste, then it seems to me that it is for you to try to instigate and organize pressure on Congress to act

I am saying that Obama, and for that matter any President, has an obligation to fire those who lie to Congress under oath while they are working for him without regard to the lack of outrage that lie may have caused. I am not arguing that he has no duty to fire in the absence or presence of outrage. Again, we prosecute all types of criminals regardless of how their victims feel.

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)

so naturally there's suddenly a big dispute in the outfield and everybody focuses their attention there

The real issue is whether or not the Senate report will see the light of day. Any large agency, like the CIA, is a swamp with multiple competing factions, especially when any issue of substance arises: then all kinds of gaming suddenly becomes apparent. The question -- How did the Senate investigators become aware of a document, that some in the CIA claim the investigators had no access to? -- may seem interesting at first sight, but it's actually a diversion

It seems very unlikely to me that Senate investigators hacked the CIA network. It is possible, of course, that the CIA's document control methods may not control documents as effectively as some CIA staff think, and that the document was available to the investigators purely by accident. But IMO the most likely answer to the question is that the someone in the CIA itself somehow gave the Senate investigators access to the document, either directly or indirectly -- in which case the availability could reflect an intent to make additional information available to the Senate investigators, or could reflect a deliberate intent to drum up a "sexy" controversy about whether or not the Senate investigators had hacked the CIA network. But none of this matters: it's a diversion from the real issue

One should take the stand: Congress has some duty to oversee the Executive in general and the intelligence community in particular. Torture is a violation of international law. The Senate report must be released to the public

if lying isn't punished. Let's be clear here. Clapper never corrected the record from the lie he told the committee in public. He didn't correct it publicly which might be justified but he also didn't correct it privately either which means the overseers had no idea just what they were overseeing. You can't be both pro oversight and pro the executive's minions lying to Congress.

He might have addressed the issue in a classified letter or other document.

You'd never see that; you'd never know...at least not until the document was unclassified.

He has addressed this issue many, many times since the Snowden documents out his lie. Not once, not on a single solitary occasion, did he say I told the committee in private that I had lied. It is more likely that I will win the Boston Marathon than he has corrected his testimony.

Is the committee coming after him?

No?

They either have concluded their business with him satisfactorily, or they simply don't give a shit. Or both.

You can keep pounding the drum for the committee to call him to account, but there comes a point in time when the ship has sailed. I think we're well past that point.

or read and understand their own committee transcripts, or follow a story in the press intelligently, half as well as you think you yourself can

Now, if you merely want to take the view that an informed citizen can sometimes be better informed about events than a typical member of Congress, I will not dispute that view, as it seems to me sufficiently credible and adequately defensible from experience: on many issues, that I think ought to matter enough to the members of Congress, for them to inform themselves well, do not actually appear to matter much to many of them, so far as I can tell -- but that is a political matter

There is no shortage of intellect or energy on The Hill: there is simply the question of how that intellect and energy will be expended. When people actually decide to pay attention (usually briefly), they often find themselves disappointed somehow about the choices made: if it matters enough, some try to exert pressure for specific changes, which can require learning more about the process and the players than most others would consider interesting

The reality is that at present most Senators, and their staffs, seem never to have developed much interest in last spring's Affair Clapper. Should you feel strongly otherwise, you are free to attempt to organize political pressure on Congress to demand Clapper's resignation, but IMO you are striking cold iron with little chance of reshaping it

He should interfere with the Senate! He should tell the House how to do their job! He should tell that jury to find that defendant guilty!! He should fire that governor, police chief, mayor, dog catcher...!

People don't understand the differences between local, state and national governments--I suppose getting the concept of separation of powers down is too much to hope for...

and yes I mean a quote of me saying Obama should tell the House how to do its job, tell a jury to find a defendant guilty or innocent, fire a governor, a police chief or a mayor. I do think he should discipline his employees when they engage in conduct which at best is deeply immoral and at worst against the law. The absolute best you can say about Clapper's conduct is that it was deeply immoral the worst, it was outright perjury. I am not saying Obama should jail him, nor even that the DOJ should prosecute him, though I think a case could well be made for exactly that, but I am saying he should have fired him immediately for his dishonesty. Again, this man serves at the pleasure of the President. The President is the only one who can fire him, and he should have done so.

by events in the outfield when you should have been paying attention to what happens on the diamond

The March 12th hearing had two parts, an open public part, followed by a closed session:

Without consulting Congress?

But they can order the assassination of a human being without consulting Congress?

Which is it, the president has NO power, or the president has the power of a King?

taken by the executive or one of his staff, he's completely powerless. Why, he can't even be expected to know anything about it.

When the subject under discussion is something that will play well with voters, he's practically a king who made it happen all by himself.

And of course, in Republican hands, presidency is transformed into an always immensely-powerful dictatorship-- so be sure to vote for any worthless sell-out the corporate Dems offer up because, hey-- can't let the GOP hold that all-powerful, yet utterly insignificant, office.

keep up with defending things that cannot be defended. No matter how hard anyone tries, extra-judicial assassination is WRONG. And yes, President's CAN fire people and do. Van Jones didn't last long after the Far Right went after him for something so trivial ignoring it as it deserved, would have been the way to handle it.

Honesty is always the best policy, for one thing is so much less stressful ....

"that all powerful, yet utterly insignificant, office"

Perfect description!

Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, and Walter Jones?

It's the familiar Mad-about-Benghazi crowd

it to irrelevant morons? Frankly I have zero interest in what Republicans have to say only in what is of benefit to this country. Are you suggesting that the President bases his decisions on what Republicans think?

lied to Cognress also, or any other crook in our government, I hope this isn't too shocking a thought, is to try to improve our Government so that War Criminals and Liars about violations of the people's rights don't view our government as great place to plant themselves, that it becomes one of the only places where Criminals are safe from consequences for their crimes.

Are YOU saying we should KEEP crooks and liars in Congress and if so, what possible reason could there be for that, because as I said, I don't base applyin the Rule of Law, we still have some laws don't we, on what a political party has to say one way or the other.

What a shame that Democrats are not speaking out about lying to Congress. Could it be that the NSA has something on all of them, being that we know now they have been spying on Congress. There seems to be no logical reason why a Civilized Coutnry would tolerate War Criminals and Liars and other assorted crooks in their government corrupting our system of justice.

rightwing Republicans James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, and Walter Jones -- all members of the mad-about-Benghazi clique

You're striking an iron that's been cold for a year, and you're doing it on behalf of crazy rightwingers

a Democrat. Clapper lied to a Democrat. But he isn't the only one

If you can find a direct quote from Wyden, that uses the word "lie:" to describe Clapper's testimony, I will (of course) be interested

Absent that, I continue to regard your claims as being somewhat careless of the truth

My view of the matter is laid forth carefully in my #129

Obama is not the king,he's the chief executive (his area is the "executive" branch--not the legislative). He does not have "the power." Congress does.

So your assertion, you see, is unsupported.

Nixon had no responsibility for that.

It wasn't the tooth fairy that persuaded Nixon to resign, now, was it?

was that he didn't fire those henchmen until well after the fact.

I prefer to think he resigned because he was about to be impeached and removed from office for actual, personal "high crimes and misdemeanors," not for the misdeeds of his staff or how long it took to dismiss them.

with the exception of the tax matter, which I don't think passed the House, all the articles of Impeachment were for things he either ordered his staff to do or things he covered up which his staff had done at his behest.

Yeah, like that would have made any difference.

It would still have been a lie. I mean, can't have it both ways.

the answer was likely classified which is what that answer would have said.

He wasn't prosecuted for his so-called "whistle-blowing" on torture in 2007

I've never liked the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: the act criminalizes some research based on entirely public information. But Kiriakou pled guilty, so it's hard to claim he was unfairly prosecuted

And Kiriakou is a scumbag

His so-called "whistle-blowing" in 2007 was actually a defense of torture: Kiriakou was busily telling the media just how wonderfully effective he thought waterboarding was -- and he stretched the truth considerably to push that kool-aid

Telling the Truth isn't a priority in a national security cough police state.

They lied American into wars for profit and remain free.

Meanwhile, the few whistleblowers named in this thread are in prison. That also is corrupt.

Why does this have to be explained to you?

Either defend the comparison or take it back. There is no third choice.

The question is, if you are a fan of Manning, why wouldnt you be upset having her compared to a torture apologist?

Or is that just fine with you?

does not share that view.

Here's where I get my POV:

CIA/Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou

John Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, the CIA started down the dark path of becoming a paramilitary organization, but Kiriakou did not abandon his. He refused the CIA’s offer to train him in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and Kiriakou never authorized or engaged in these techniques that constituted torture. In fact, Kiriakou wrote of torture: “There are some things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”

KiriakouAfter leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm that the agency waterboarded detainees and label waterboarding as torture. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

The government started investigating Kiriakou immediately after his media appearance. Five years later, the government finally succeeded in piecing together enough information to criminally prosecute him. He became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies, not whistleblowers.

When Kiriakou came to GAP for help, we began acting as his legal counsel on whistleblower issues and started a public advocacy campaign on his case. Eventually, in order to avoid a trial that could have resulted in separation from his wife and five children for up to 45 years, he opted to plead guilty to one count (not Espionage) in exchange for a 30-month sentence.

Kiriakou is the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program, despite the fact that he never tortured anyone. Rather, he blew the whistle on this horrific wrongdoing.

Kiriakou’s Service To His Country

Kiriakou worked at the CIA from 1990 until 2004, risking his life on several occasions. He began his career at the CIA as an analyst, and later served as a counterterrorism operations officer overseas.


[font size="2"]Abu_Zubaydah
Kiriakou led the CIA team in the March 2002 raid and capture of Abu Zubaydah, then-al Qaeda’s #3.[/font size]

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Kiriakou became the chief of counterterrorism operations in Pakistan. CIA officials offered to train Kiriakou in “enhanced interrogation techniques," but he refused. While serving in Pakistan, Kiriakou led the CIA team in the March 2002 raid and capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was considered al Qaeda’s third-ranking official at the time. Kiriakou sat with Abu Zubaydah for days after his capture, but did not witness the agency waterboarding him. The CIA distributed disinformation internally that Zubaydah had been waterboarded one time, and that as a result, he had “cracked.” It was later revealed that the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times, and the waterboarding had not resulted in any actionable intelligence. Although Zubaydah’s interrogations were videotaped, the CIA later destroyed the videos despite a judicial order to preserve them, claiming it was done to protect the identities of agents shown in the footage. Following Zubaydah’s capture, Kiriakou became Executive Assistant to the CIA’s Deputy Director for Operations, where he served as the Director of Central Intelligence’s principal Iraq briefer.

Kiriakou left the CIA in March 2004. He later served as a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as senior intelligence advisor to Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry. Kiriakou also authored a book and worked as an intelligence consultant.

Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department’s Meritorious Honor Award.

Kiriakou’s Disclosures

In the 2007 interview on ABC News, Kiriakou became the first CIA officer to publicly confirm that the CIA had waterboarded prisoners, and that such an action was torture. He also confirmed that torture was an official U.S. government policy, rather than wrongdoing by a few rogue agents.

CONTINUED with links, details, video, etc...

http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/torture/ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou

would suggest Chelsea Manning is in any way linked to a torture apologist who lied to help Mukasey get confirmed--lied and said that waterboarding was effective--

Do you really think he would if he was OK with it?

opportunity to take the comparison back.

I recommend that is what you do.

efficacy of waterboarding!

Look....this person has been smart enough to garner support by claiming he was a whistleblower about torture. He wasn't whistleblowing---he was bragging. And that lying helped get Mukasey confirmed.

because he had already done a positive (very) limited hangout.

If only we would see 10% of that 'drive' spent on getting Dubya put behind bars. Oh well, as you can see many many Dems LOVE them some Big Brother!

I'm not defending sending him to prison, that is another issue.

But he is most definitely not a whistleblowing hero.

It's like going to the police station to report a bank robbery and finding the sergeant at the desk was one of the robbers.

Our government (Democrats & Republicans) lost ALL pretense at being able to supervise themselves
when they turned their backs & ran away from that one.

Forward is the only polite direction for looking and/or leaning.

P.S. Do you happen to speak French and do you like puns?

despite my upbringing in New Orleans and the Cajan Bayous of South Louisiana,
I speak no French,
or "Fraunch" as they say in Grand Chenier, Louisiana.

nt.

Fighting the spread of WMDs, in general. Counternuclearproliferation, specifically.

Yet, Bush and Cheney stopped them and endangered their network -- just to get at Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Sorry to shout, bvar 22. It's for the hard of understanding.

yep ...the war criminal and chief ...George W Bush

...and the original leaker was Mr Grumpy (sorry forgot his name) ...some self important asscarrot.

Libby got clemency, not a pardon. He got out of jail, but still had the fine and conviction on his record and had to serve probation.

"We have to look forward..." , and all that.

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I've been reassured from the "My mother ..drunk of sober" government totalitarian shill gang that had any whistleblower gone to a lawyer first they would be protected ....because of course they never needed a whistleblower act in the first place. Oh of course all the concern for U.S. national security over human rights and the constitution is so patriotic. I am sooo sick of these malicious COINTELPRO loving plants.

He was defending the then policy of the Bush administration.

and he then spilled the beans so to speak.

When more information came out it turned out that he had been waterboarded 83 times and KSM over 180 times (IIRC) with no clear indication that it was useful.

But of course by then, Kiriakou had already set the perception that it was a useful technique, and RW pundits rely on that perception to this day.

attacks that seem to stem from your interpersonal experiences with your family.

I urge you to cease the personal attacks, as 1) they make your argument less cohesive, and 2) are indicative of issues you may not wish to share. I am not your mother, and I am sorry you apparently have a bad relationship with her.

Most likely this is not applicable so this may or may not help you.
narcissism: Hypersensitivity to any insults or "imagined insults" (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)

you are.

I'm merely asking you to work out your family issues without involving me.

Project much? You are only embarrassing your self in front of your DU betters.

have some issue with me that you have conflated with problems with your mother. I don't think you quoted Chesterton so often and so vehemently just for fun....so, I urge you to resolve whatever problems you have, and leave me out of it.

Why not put me on ignore?

1) whether he deserves to be behind bars
2) whether he's a whistleblower

I don't know enough about the law to speak on (1) but I remember his role very clearly at the time as an apologist for waterboarding.

I watched the interviews when they went out at the time and he was very clearly defending the waterboarding program.

about justice in America and White House hypocrisy.

together in the other half of your sentence? very very funny

A justice system which publicly describes itself as criminal will provide criminal results.

and take the side of people like Panetta or Clapper. I dont expect that on a politically liberal message board.

The point of the OP was that punishment for the 1% isnt the same as for the 99%, and there are those here that rationalize that, that is ok.

Gen Clapper lied to Congress. He even admitted it when he choose to tell Ms. Mitchell his explanation INSTEAD OF CONGRESS. And there are people here that try to justify his lie.

Rachel Maddow said when speaking to Jon Stewart (I am paraphrasing from memory), that what we did with Iraq influences what we do today and will continue to influence us until we make those responsible accountable.

Throwing whistle-blowers in prison and allowing war criminals to be on talk shows is unconscionable. It is not what America is all about and those that try to rationalize that away are choosing the wrong side. This is a class war and Panetta, Clapper, Cartwright work for the 1%, and whistle-blowers work for the 99%. Which side are you on?

However fair your general point is it doesn't alter the fact that Kiriakou was a neocon stooge who planted the notion in the MSM that torture was unbelievably quick and effective: "just 30 seconds" of waterboarding and your detainee will be singing like a canary!

that whistle-blowers are treated badly while people that work for the 1% are given a pass, for the same crime or worse.

That's what I object to. Kiriakou is not a posterboy for the 99% or whistleblowers.

He was part of the propaganda campaign that justified torture.

It started with him and continued with politicians like Cheney and pundits like Hannity.

Kiriakou left the CIA in March 2004. He later served as a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as senior intelligence advisor to Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry. Kiriakou also authored a book and worked as an intelligence consultant.

Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department’s Meritorious Honor Award.

-----


CIA/Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou


http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/torture/ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou

John Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After 9/11, the CIA started down the dark path of becoming a paramilitary organization, but Kiriakou did not abandon his. He refused the CIA’s offer to train him in “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and Kiriakou never authorized or engaged in these techniques that constituted torture. In fact, Kiriakou wrote of torture: “There are some things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”

After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm that the agency waterboarded detainees and label waterboarding as torture. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

The government started investigating Kiriakou immediately after his media appearance. Five years later, the government finally succeeded in piecing together enough information to criminally prosecute him. He became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies, not whistleblowers.

Kiriakou became, and remains, widely viewed as an American hero who bravely served his country and blew the whistle on torture. In 2012, for example, Kiriakou was honored with the Joe A. Callaway Award for Civil Courage, an award given to individuals who advance truth and justice despite the personal risk it creates.

-Snip--

Meanwhile, countless others who have committed far graver offenses than Kiriakou have never been held accountable for their wrongdoing. For example, Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, also received a 30-month sentence for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. This leak, unlike Kiriakou’s whistleblowing disclosures, held no public value. President George W. Bush, however, commuted Libby’s sentence. Similarly, Michael Vickers revealed the name of an intelligence official to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty … yet he was never held accountable for his disclosures. And General David Petraeus leaked information to a journalist with whom he was having an affair, but was also never punished or prosecuted.

Even more troubling is the fact that CIA agents who actually engaged in torture after 9/11 have never been prosecuted, nor have the officials who condoned or ordered torture, or the attorneys who wrote memos justifying the torture. Similarly, the officials who destroyed the videotapes that provided clear evidence of torture have never been held accountable for their wrongdoing.

The Plea]/b]

On Oct. 23, 2012, in order to avoid further legal fees and to ensure that he would not face up to 45 years away from his wife and five children, Kiriakou entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty to the one IIPA charge, the prosecution agreed to a 30-month sentence and dropped all four of the remaining charges, including all of the Espionage Act charges. Kiriakou was the first person to be convicted under the IIPA in 27 years.

Kiriakou was formally sentenced on January 25, 2013 to 30 months in federal prison. Two days prior to sentencing, Kiriakou was honored by inclusion of his portrait in artist Robert Shetterly's series "Americans Who Tell the Truth," which features notable truth-tellers from American history. A short video of the Washington, DC event unveiling the portrait is embedded below.

I now think he was more of a useful idiot than a knowing propagandist (as per additional information provided in this thread).

everyone unanimously would praise whistleblowers.