Obvious Whistleblower Retaliation
Charging Wikileaks Source: The Nail in the Coffin of Whistblowers
By Jesselyn Radack
Even the Washington Post gets it. In its article on the criminal charges brought against Army intelligence analyst Pfc. Bradley Manning, the sub-headline to the article reads:
U.S. TAKING TOUGH LINE ON LEAKS
The opening paragraph states that the military charging Bradley Manning
is likely to further deter would-be whistleblowers.
I don't care if it's Bush or Obama at the helm. The biggest crimes of our generation--torture, warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition--would not have come to light but for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. For the hand-wringing "but we can't willy-nilly reveal classified information" crowd, do you think Abu Ghraib wasn't classified?
We are told (though there has been not a shred of evidence other than the government saying this, and even the charges do not reflect this number) that Manning gave some 250,000 classified State Department cables to Wikileaks.org. All we really KNOW is that the website published a horrific video of an American helicopter massacring unarmed Iraqi civilians, including children, and the shooters cheering on each other as if it were a video game.
And the former senior National Security Agency (NSA) official Thomas Drake? The party line is that he "leaked" classified material to a newspaper. If you read the indictment, he has really been indicted under the Espionage Act, a 93-year-old law meant to catch spies, for allegedly "retaining" classified information. What the government is really mad about is that an article appeared in the Baltimore Sun describing how and why the NSA opted for an billion-dollar, failed invasive surveillance program called "Trailblazer" over one that could more adequately collect intelligence information without violating people's privacy.
Short of killing someone (think Karen Silkwood, and more recently, of the "worldwide manhunt" for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange launched by the Pentagon), this is the worst, and increasingly popular, form of retaliation that can be taken against a whistleblower: criminal prosecution for revealing the truth--which in both the Manning and Drake cases did no harm to national security, but instead committed the far worse "crime" of embarrassing the government. In fact, both these men were trying to expose conduct they thought, and that was, illegal.
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
reprinted from Dailykos.com with author permission
Jesselyn Radack and I am the former Justice Department ethics attorney and whistleblower in the case of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. In today's issue of The National Law (more...)
* * * *
* * * *
Alex Jones: Epic Corruption and the Whistle-blower
Text with video:
Alex talks about the incredible story of Richard Fine, an attorney being held as a political prisoners in L.A. County Jail for over a year!!
[[ Epic Corruption and the Whistle-blower ]]
April 14, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court will be holding a private conference hearing on Friday, April 23rd 2010, to determine whether to hold a full court hearing on corruption charges within the Los Angeles County government for illegally imprisoning attorney Richard Fine. A rally to acknowledge the U.S. Supreme Court hearing will be held at the L.A. Superior Court building at 8 am Tuesday April 20th, by supporters of Richard Fines release from illegal imprisonment. Mainstream media has avoided any mention of this epic corruption scandal, despite its significance, and now it is on its way to the the Supreme Court.
Richard Fine, who holds a PhD in international law and served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., has been in jail in the L.A. County Jail for over a year in solitary confinement. He never had a trial, there has been no conviction, nor any sentence to keep him there. Sheriff LeRoy Baca claims he does not know why Fine is in jail, yet he keeps him there and failed to answer Fines Writ of Habeas Corpus. Baca refused to allow a filmed interview with Fine until Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of Full Disclosure Network, and then, out of the blue, he changed his mind and granted a filmed interview with them!
Fine believes he is imprisoned because of political reasons:
1. Fine exposed L.A. Superior Court judges of taking illegal money from the County, in violation of the California State Constitution.
2. The County Supervisors were using public tax money to pay off the Superior Court judges.
3. The Superior Court Judges decided cases in favor of the County (Fine reports that since 2005 to present, only 3 people have won cases against the County as a result of the bribes).
4. The California State Legislature have given the judges and County Supervisors immunity from prosecution for their actions and misappropriation of taxpayer money.
5. The judges have tried to get Mr. Fine disbarred from the California State Bar as a result of the lawsuit he filed on behalf of the taxpayers who were denied due process.
6. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe (accused judge) failed to recuse himself and sent Fine to prison. He also failed to cite any precedent (denying Fine due process).
7. L.A. County Sheriff LeRoy Baca illegally imprisoned Fine, and Fine is in jail today.
8. Fine should have been released within 5 days, according to the law.
Sheriff LeRoy Baca was subject to term limits, but prior to his last election, he filed a lawsuit to get out from under term limits. The Superior Court judge ruled in his favor (surprise!). Term limits are a prevention against corruption. The lawsuit was approved by the County Supervisors who paid for it with the taxpayers money; the taxpayers had previously voted in term limits, but it was overturned for Sheriff Baca. Sheriff LeRoy Baca is up for re-election June 8, 2010. No one is running against him. He makes $268,000 a year in this position.
In this interview, Fine tells us that the special interests behind the County Supervisors are the real estate developers, who gave money to Supervisor Antonovich and Supervisor Knabe, who were then disallowed from voting on a related Environmental Impact Report that Fine submitted in a real estate development case. They voted illegally in favor of the developers.
This is how our government is usurped by criminals and corruption within the system.
Supreme Court rules against jailed lawyer Richard Fine
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/24/2010 07:54:15 PM PDT
Updated: 05/24/2010 07:58:04 PM PDT
Issuing a final ruling in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday denied Tarzana tax attorney Richard I. Fine's request to be released from Men's Central Jail, where he has been held for failing to divulge information on his personal assets.
Fine, a 70-year-old former taxpayer advocate attorney who claims he's a "political prisoner," has spent 14 months in jail.
A former Beverly Hills attorney who once worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, Fine has been held in solitary confinement since early 2009 after he refused to pay $46,329 or release details of personal finances.
At the time, Fine was handling a case on behalf of Marina del Rey residents and Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe found him in contempt of court and ordered him held until he divulges the information.
"We are deeply disappointed in the outcome of this," said Victoria Fine, Fine's daughter who is a journalist and editor at The Huffington Post. "It's scary to me that the justice system at all levels doesn't see the inherent flaws in the system and is choosing not to correct them."
In his Supreme Court brief, Fine alleged his confinement is retaliation for exposing Los Angeles County's practice of paying judges an annual bonus of $57,000 in addition to their state salary of $179,000 - providing local judges with salaries higher than the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who earns $218,000 annually.
Since the county began paying the judges the the extra benefits in the late 1980s, Fine wrote the county has won "virtually all lawsuits" decided by the judges.
An appellate court in San Diego ruled in late 2008 that the payments were unconstitutional, but the state Legislature subsequently passed a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for all involved government officials.
In a telephone interview late last week, Fine said if the Supreme Court denied his release that it would mean the "entire judicial system in the United States is lost."
"It means it's acceptable for judges to accept bribes and acceptable for judges to judge their own actions," Fine said.
A Superior Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment on the Supreme Court's ruling.
The high court's ruling came only hours after CNN aired a story about Fine's plight. In a blog entry, CNN Special Investigations Unit reporter Abbie Boudreau noted the "dapper Beverly Hills attorney known for his bow tie" is "not a criminal."
"What will happen if Fine refuses to cooperate, and Judge Yaffe doesn't put an end to this?" Boudreau asked. "Could this go on for another year, or maybe even more? At what point does `coercive confinement' become nothing more than an indefinite jail sentence?"
This blogger's previous post on the Richard I. Fine story:
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
What is this blogger's beef with the US Police State? Well, my letter to Leonard C. Boyle when he was Commissioner of the Connecticut State Police, may tell it:
The below text from:
Washington, D.C. – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller, III has named Leonard C. Boyle Director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). Mr. Boyle previously served as Commissioner of Connecticut’s largest law enforcement agency, the Connecticut Department of Public Safety. In his new position with the FBI, Mr. Boyle will oversee and direct all TSC operations.
In 1986, Mr. Boyle began his 17 year term with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut. He was appointed supervisor of the Hartford Branch Office in 1992 and Chief of the Criminal Division in 1994. Heading this division, he supervised approximately 30 federal prosecutors and all criminal prosecutions in the state. In 1998, he left the U.S. Attorney’s Office for 15 months to work as a partner in the Hartford law firm of Murtha, Cullina, Richter and Pinney. He resumed his career as a federal prosecutor in 1999 before his appointment as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety in 2004.
Mr. Boyle served as a Special Attorney to the Attorney General of the United States. In this role, he investigated and prosecuted law enforcement officials who had corrupt relationships with criminal figures in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Boyle received the U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service for his work in the Boston case. He received the U.S. Department of Justice’s Director’s Award in 2001 for his prosecution of civil rights cases involving members of the Hartford Police Department, and in 2002 for his racketeering prosecution of organized crime figures. In 1990, he received the U.S. Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award for his prosecution of United States v. Gerena, et.al.
Since 1994, Mr. Boyle has been an Adjunct Professor at the University Of Connecticut School Of Law and an instructor at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Education and National Advocacy Center.
In 1980, Mr. Boyle graduated from the University of Hartford and in 1983, earned a law degree from the University Of Connecticut School Of Law. Immediately following law school, Mr. Boyle clerked for Chief Justice John A. Speziale of the Connecticut Supreme Court and served as an associate at the law firm of Tyler, Cooper and Alcorn in New Haven, Connecticut.
The TSC was established on September 16, 2003 by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, which directed the institution of a center to consolidate the government’s approach to terrorism screening. The TSC serves as the single point of accountability for ensuring the merging and appropriate sharing of terrorist information by maintaining a thorough, accurate, and current secure list of terrorist identities information.
The TSC is a multi-agency center administered by the FBI with support from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. For more information on the TSC, visit http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm.
* * * *
Sibel Edmonds Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1
Text with video:
Former FBI Translator Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11
Before you hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say, you should know a little about her background.
Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible.
And some of Edmonds allegations' have already been confirmed by the British press.
Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.
Outrageous claim, right?
Actually, there are several lines of confirmation of Edmonds' claim.
•According to one of the most reputable French papers, CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
•Two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while. US officials later told CNN that in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
In other words, American forces had many opportunities to capture Bin Laden, and yet failed to do so.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the U.S. military intentionally let Bin Laden evade capture. Outrageous? Don't believe it?
The CIA commander in charge of the capture of Bin Laden during the invasion of Afghanistan said that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan