Government Accountability Project

Protecting Corporate, Government & International Whistleblowers since 1977

Secrecy & Transparency

ATF Head to Congress: Justice Department Muzzled Employees Wanting to Cooperate With Congress

Email Print PDF
by Jesselyn Radack on July 07, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

ATF building courtesy of
Flickr user paul_houle

Today's Washington Post and New York Times report that the embattled head of the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Ken Melson, met with congressional staffers last weekend to explain his role in the tragically botched "Fast and Furious" sting operation.

Intended to allow the U.S. to track guns to Mexican drug cartels by knowingly letting guns across the U.S./Mexico border (whose brilliant idea was that?), the now-abandoned "Fast and Furious" operation came under criticism after two guns linked to the operation resurfaced in an Arizona shootout that killed a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.

Reporting on Melson's interview with a bi-partisan group of congressional staffers in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA) and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) accuse the Justice Department of  implementing an approach which "distorted the truth" and "obstructed our investigation."  The letter accuses the Justice Department of

"effectively muzzl[ing]" ATF leadership while "DOJ sent over [to Congress] false denials and buried its head in the sand."
Read more »  
Comments: 0
 

Government Accessing Journalists' Phone Records: Happened to Me/Newsweek in 2003

Email Print PDF
by Jesselyn Radack on June 29, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

There's a lot of MSM attention being paid to the most recent of three identical subpoenas issued to New York Times investigative reporter James Risen to reveal his source, widely known to be whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling.  Risen submitted an amazing affidavit that should be required reading for anyone who cares about a free press.

I wanted to add to the dialogue my (in the words of Douglas McCollam) "creepy" experience as another example of the government tracking reporters' phone calls.  As the Columbia Journalism Review wrote on my situation back in 2003:

The government got a record of [Newsweek's] calls to an important source [Radack] on an important story [government malfeasance in the "American Taliban" case], without either party's knowing about it.  It's a quick lesson on how far an irate government may go to burn your source.  So remember, even on a local line, let's be careful out there.

So when Risen says,

I have learned from an individual who testified before a grand jury . . . that was examining my reporting about the domestic wiretapping program that the Government had shown this individual copies of telephone records relating to calls made to and from me

I am not surprised in the least.  Why is the MSM only realizing this in 2011 rather than 2003?

Read more »  
Comments: 0
 

Inspector General Report Vindicates GAP Clients From National Security Agency

Email Print PDF
by Kathleen McClellan on June 23, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

Inspector General (IG) Complainants J. Kirk Wiebe and William Binney React to Release of Report
Thomas Drake Served as Critical Material Witness During IG Investigation.

In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from GAP, Project on Government Oversight, and media outlets, yesterday, the Department of Defense (DoD) released a heavily redacted version of the December 15, 2004 Audit Report entitled "Requirements for the TRAILBLAZER And THINTHREAD Systems." 

The Report is the result of a years-long investigation launched after three former NSA officials (J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, and Ed Loomis) and a former congressional staffer (Diane Roark) filed a DoD Hotline Complaint alerting the IG to massive waste and mismanagement within the National Security Agency (NSA). Former senior NSA official Thomas Drake served as a material witness. GAP represents Wiebe, Binney, and Drake on whistleblower issues.

The whistleblowers asserted that the NSA had defrauded taxpayers and ignored urgent security needs by shelving a functioning program that included critical privacy protections for Americans (Thinthread) in favor of an undeveloped and significantly more costly venture that lacked privacy protections (Trailblazer).

Read more »  
Comments: 0
 

Newly-Released Inspector General Report Vindicates Drake and Other NSA Whistleblowers

Email Print PDF
by Jesselyn Radack on June 23, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

The Department of Defense Inspector General just released a heavily redacted version of the Intelligence Audit "Requirements for the TRAILBLAZER and THINTHREAD SYSTEMS."

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake served as a critical material witness during the investigation for this report.  Drake's reward was an indictment under the Espionage Act. This Report is what government's case against NSA whistleblower Tom Drake was really about.  

Drake would have been on trial this week had the Justice Department's case not crumbled two weeks ago in the face of negative judicial rulings and almost universally critical media coverage (chiefly in The New Yorker and on 60 Minutes).

The newly-released IG report completely vindicates Drake, and the Hotline complainants (former NSA officials J. Kirk Wiebe, Bill Binney and Ed Loomis, and former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark) who raised concerns that the National Security Agency (NSA) was trading the security of the American people for a undeveloped funding vehicle (Trailblazer) that needlessly invaded the privacy of Americans; all the while NSA rejected a viable, cheaper program (ThinThread) that contained privacy protections and was ready to deploy prior to 9/11.  My organization, Government Accountability Project (GAP), represents Drake, Binney and Wiebe.

Read more »  
Comments: 0
 

3rd Time's the Charm in Subpoenaing Risen?: Obama's Continued War on Whistleblowers and REPORTERS

Email Print PDF
by Jesselyn Radack on June 22, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

New York Times reporter James Risen just filed a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena for him to testify about the identity of his confidential source(s) at the trial of whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling under the Espionage Act.

The motion is as striking for what it DOESN'T SAY (or more aptly, what you CANNOT READ) as for what it does.  Over half of its 48 pages of text are redacted.  Seven are redacted in their entirety.

I can't help but be struck by the similarities of the arguments made by Risen and the issues in the recently-collapsed prosecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake.  I guess with Risen, the government is hoping the third time's the charm, because it has demanded (unsuccessfully) that Risen reveal his confidential sources(s) on this same subject two times before.

James Risen, who has twice won the Pulitzer Prize for his investigative reporting, has been subpoenaed to testify about his source(s) in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA whistleblower.

The information at issue revealed a botched CIA effort called "MERLIN," designed to provide Iran with flawed nuclear design information.  But the flaw was so obvious that the Iranians spotted it, and it turns out, we ended up providing them useful nuclear weapons information.  Whoops!

Read more »  
Comments: 1
 

ANOTHER WaPo Editorial: Prosecution Against Drake Poorly Conceived

Email Print PDF
by Jesselyn Radack on June 13, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

The Washington Post has another editorial critical of the prosecution of NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake. Last week's editorial said that the Drake prosecution "smacks of overkill."  

This week, the Post drills down on the Justice Department's glaring defeat in agreeing to let Drake plea to a single misdemeanor with no jail time and no fine when he was originally facing decades in prison for charges under the Espionage Act:

[T]he yawning gap between the original charges against Mr. Drake and the plea bargain is not only an embarrassment for the Justice Department but demonstrates the extent to which it overreached.
Just as important, it focuses on the fact that there's no meaningful whistleblower protection for national security and intelligence employees. Drake has been the model of "responsible" (as defined by the government) whistleblowing.  He went to Congress and the Inspector General, the former of which did nothing, and the latter of which vindicated his concerns and then double-crossed him.

The case against former NSA official Tom Drake ended not with a bang but a burp.

Drake was set to go on trial today for grave charges under the Espionage Act--ironically on the 40th anniversary of the release of the Pentagon Papers by the first man to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for "mishandling classified information": Daniel Ellsberg.
Read more »  
Comments: 0
 

Prosecution Against Drake Collapses; Drake Pleads to Minor Charge

Email Print PDF
by Jesselyn Radack on June 10, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

The Justice Department's case against National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Tom Drake was a case built on sand that collapsed under the weight of the truth.  

Bravo Tom Drake, for refusing to compromise on the truth, standing firm for our Constitution, and responding to government's outrageous allegations with poise and honesty.

The Justice Department sought to put Drake in jail for 35 years and accused him of violating the Espionage Act.  Instead, Drake will plead this morning (just days before he was to begin trial) to a minor misdemeanor, exceeding authorized use of a government computer, with the government agreeing to no jail time and no fine. This is an unambiguous victory for Drake, who has endured the most severe form of whistleblower retaliation I have ever seen.  The Justice Department's decision to prosecute Drake was pure retribution for his blowing the whistle on massive NSA waste and illegality, and the government's glaring defeat is a victory for whistleblowers who refuse to let government agencies hide wrongdoing behind secrecy and threats of retaliation.

The experts weighed in on the plea deal:

"It's a pale shadow of the original indictment," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who works on government secrecy issues and has been following the Drake case. "The defendant was facing decades in prison, and all of the sudden the government says never mind. It's a pretty big reversal of course."
Read more »  
Comments: 1
 
Page 8 of 20