Government Accountability Project

I was just on Democracy Now! discussing the prosecution of whistleblower Thomas Drake, who used to be a senior executive at the National Security Agency (NSA).  I'm glad people are finally paying attention to this case, thanks to Jane Mayer's explosive cover story in the New Yorker, which Glenn Greenwald referred to as the "must-read article of the month."

The government would have you believe that this is a case involving the disclosure of classified information to a journalist.  It is not.  It's a "retention" case about 5 innocuous pieces of information that Drake allegedly took home, if at all, by mistake.  His real crime? Committing the truth by revealing gross waste, mismanagement and illegality at NSA.Let's get down to brass tacks.  Drake never leaked classified information to a reporter, or anyone, and is not CHARGED with "leaking" classified information.  So, what is he charged with?:

Count 1 - a "Regular Meetings" document that appeared on NSA's intranet marked as UNCLASSIFIED;

Count 2 - a self-congratulatory "What a Success" document that appeared on NSA's intranet, which was declassified in July 2010 (but the prosecution didn't tell Drake this for 8 months);

Counts 3-5 - information that in whole or in part formed the basis of some of Drake's protected communication to the Department of Defense Inspector General as part of their investigation into NSA's gross waste, mismanagement and illegality related to a secret surveillance program;

Count 6 - obstruction of justice for allegedly impeding the Justice Department's pretextual "leak" investigation into the sources for the New York Times Pulitzer prize-winning article on warrantless wiretapping;

Count 7 - alleged "false statements" for telling the truth, namely, that he never gave the reporter classified information;

Count 8 - alleged "false statements" for telling the truth, namely, that Drake didn't bring any classified documents home;

Count 9 - alleged "false statements" for telling the truth, namely, that he only removed unclassified information from classified documents; and

Count 10 - alleged "false statements" for telling the truth, namely, that he never took handwritten notes that contained classified information.

"That's it??" I hear you saying as you scratch your head.

Yup.

These charges should be easy to defeat, right?  Unfortunately, Thomas Drake has to do that in a trial where the government has tried to preclude mention of "whistleblowing," "overclassification" and published newspaper articles!  (Thankfully, the judge overruled the government on all three.)  But now he has to contend with the government wanting to use a "silent witness rule" through which the judge and jury would use a special code to discuss the evidence but the public would have no clue what's happening, and wait for it . . . the government wants to use classification substitutions for information that is not classified.

Every step of the way this has been an uphill battle.  As the target of a federal criminal "leak investigation" (now closed) myself,  I know what a David vs. Goliath struggle it is to fight the government.  Drake blew the whistle on government illegality and now he's the one being prosecuted.  It's that simple.