Stephen Kohn explains whistleblowing as a civil liberties and a First Amendment issue, the role of whistleblowers as enablers of congressional oversight, and discusses the legal and political implications involved in whistleblowing. He talks about the broken Merit System Protection Board, the abuses of secrecy laws and State Secrets Privilege, the current status of whistleblower protection laws in Congress, the case of Halliburton whistleblower Bunnatine Greenhouse, the current administration’s highly disappointing stand against national security whistleblowers despite President Obama’s endorsement prior to his elections, and more!

Stephen M. Kohn is the Executive Director of National Whistleblowers Center, one of the nation’s foremost experts in whistleblower protection law, and the author of the first legal treatise on whistleblowing, Protecting Environmental and Nuclear Whistleblowers: A Litigation Manual. Since 1984, Mr. Kohn has successfully represented whistleblowers in numerous cases (both at trial and on appeal), has testified in Congress on behalf of whistleblower reforms, and has worked directly with the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee on drafting the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate whistleblower law. Mr. Kohn has a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law; an M.A. in Political Science from Brown University; and a B.S. in Social Education from Boston University.  In addition to his books on whistleblower law, Mr. Kohn is the author of Jailed for Peace  and American Political Prisoners.

Here is our guest Stephen Kohn unplugged!

 

 Interview with Stephen Kohn [69:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

NSA’s Russ Tice on CyberCom & StratCom

While we were busy covering the ‘Iranian Twitter Revolution’ and gobbling up the latest ‘sex’ news involving Sanford:

Robert Gates issued his anticipated order to establish the U.S. Cyber Command which ‘supposedly’ will be responsible for defending the military portion of cyberspace. Of course the preoccupation with Sanford’s hanky panky and playing cheerleader for our twitter buddies didn’t allow for any in-depth coverage of this gigantic development.

Here is what my friend and a member of NSWBC, Russ Tice, Former NSA Senior Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, had to say about this latest development:

“As StratCom has neither the expertise nor technical resources to conduct this mission, the default control of CyberCom will fall, by design, into the lap of NSA. This was similarly true of StratCom being given responsibility for military space after the demise of US Space Command, which effectively ceded control of space to the Air Force. Are we to believe that CyberCom being headquartered not at Omaha, NE, but rather at Fort Meade, MD, right next to NSA; and with NSA’s current director, Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, promoted to a four star general, as its head, is a coincidence?

NSA has coveted control of cyber operations for some time and already exerts considerable influence in the mission field. Illegally, NSA has tapped into all domestic e-mail traffic within the United States. To allow them the ability to subject all U.S. domestic computer communications to offensive cyber attacks and the many other aspects of digital “information warfare” should make all of America shutter in fear. Of course this supposedly will be subject to congressional oversight, federal statutes, executive orders, and agency regulations, and we all now know how steadfastly NSA is committed to these safeguards and to our constitutional liberties. With NSA now pulling the wool over our new president’s eyes, in conjunction with their contempt for congressional oversight, I am truly horrified of the prospect that NSA will usher us into a new dystopia where we will soon learn the mandatory newspeak language that will alter the concluding line of our national anthem from “… the land of the free and home of the brave” to, “… the land of the fear and the home of the depraved”.

This development indicates that SecDef Robert Gates is truly a creature of his former master. Be afraid America, be very afraid, as NSA will soon be the number one “clear and present danger” to your freedom and liberty. “

For the first time, Tice goes on record and reveals his exact job title and mission concentration while working for the NSA & DIA:

“At NSA and while at DIA, I worked as an Intelligence Analyst & Capabilities Operations Officer specializing in all aspects of OFFENSIVE INFORMATION WARFARE (O-IW).”

I had a meeting with James Bamford and got a ‘real’ education on how alarming this really is. I am also in touch with a few other NSA sources and friends, so more on this later…

Next

US drone attacks on a funeral in South Waziristan piled up at least 35 more civilian bodies. Let’s add these up as we go. Jeremy Scahill has a solid piece on this:

“In the first 99 days of 2009, more than 150 people were reportedly killed in these drone attacks. The most recent documented attack was Tuesday in Waziristan. Since 2006, the US drone strikes have killed 687 people (as of April). That amounts to about 38 deaths a month just from drone attacks.”

So yes, let’s take the responsibility of adding these up since our media and many blogosphere activists are currently busy with Sanford’s escapade and ‘twitter land.’

Back to Iran

And, for the final update I am choosing a couple of relevant reports in line with our own ‘twitter’ coverage:

Chip Pitts has an interesting analysis on ‘Twitter Factor’ over at CSR LAW. It is extensively documented and linked. I plan to go back and read it a second time.

Philip Giraldi has a refreshing perspective on the latest concerning Iran over at AntiWar.

Giraldi appropriately bashes the newly found expertise among those who’ve been muddying historical facts and what’s really happening on the ground with their intentional fiction, spin, or, ignorant interpretation reeking with naivety or plain old stupidity:

“Having spent much of my working life as an intelligence officer on the street in places like Istanbul, I am astonished at what passes for expertise in the debate over what to do about Iran. It is clear that even the few genuine experts on Iran don’t really know what is going on there because they are slaves to their sources of information, which tend to reflect their own philosophical viewpoints and are, in any event, narrowly based.”

Here are a few excerpts on ‘Twitter Hero’ Mousavi:

“He is, in reality, a defender of extremely corrupt vested interests. That he has attracted the support of the so-called “Gucci crowd” of twentyish twitterers does not mean that he has embraced western values.”

I love his right on target characterization here: “Gucci Crowd of Twentyish Twitterers”!! Well-said, Phil, totally in line with what I’ve been getting from my Iranian sources here and over there.

“And then there is the corruption issue, Iran’s six hundred pound gorilla. Mousavi is heir to the corrupt Iran of the post- revolutionary period when the country was looted by the senior clerics cooperating with the business class, the bazaaris.”

The corruption charges on Mousavi are valid; have been established. He appears to fit the “State Department Viable Candidate Criteria,’ don’t you agree? And, here is another good observation:

“If there was one thing I learned from twenty years of experience as a military intelligence and CIA officer it is that nothing is ever what it seems. If a situation appears to be clear cut, with good guys and bad guys arrayed against each other it is probably anything but. So maybe black and white comes out gray. All the more reason to step back.”

And this is how Giraldi nicely wraps up his piece:

“The old Hippocratic advice to doctors to “do no harm” should perhaps be the best advice for the American political chattering classes and the media. Doing no harm regarding events in Iran is to stay out of it.”

That’s it for a quick round up of a few select issues while Sanford Gate & the Iran Spin machine are busy at work, taking up space and time all over the news and much of the blogosphere…

Project Expose MSM

We all have been tirelessly screaming about issues related to Congressional leaders abdicating their main responsibility of ‘oversight.’ We have been outraged for way too long at seeing ‘no’ accountability whatsoever in many known cases of extreme wrongdoing. I, and many of you, believe that the biggest reason for this was, and still is, the lack of true journalism and media coverage — which acts as the necessary pressure and catalyst for those spineless politicians on the Hill and in the Executive branch. Or, at least it’s supposed to. So, in our book, the MSM has been the main culprit.

Well, here is a chance to turn the tables.

At my new blog, 123 Real Change, I’m happy to present an experimental project, Project Expose MSM, created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers.123 Real Change is inviting all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and even reporters themselves, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored, blacked out or tainted.

Yes, we will be naming names — myself included.

We will even do so below, in one real-case example, intended to help illustrate how the project will work. In the absence of the real investigative journalism and unbiased independent media we need, this is one way to set the record straight…

Not only that, we also know there are many potential whistleblowers out there who are seeking ‘trust-worthy’ reporters and/or publications in order to inform the public. At the same time, many of us in the whistleblower community have learned the hard way that there are many reporters and publications who should be avoided. It is our responsibility to offer those whistleblowers guidance, based on our own knowledge and experience, and maybe save them from some of the traps we ourselves fell into.

Project Expose MSM will select and publicize legitimate, credible, and documented/witnessed stories. It will provide a forum for those with first-hand experience to share their stories with the public. It will raise awareness and allow people to discuss these cases openly. And hopefully it will help to foster improvements to the current, sorry state of our MSM by bringing the wrongs to light.

Here is an important point to remember: Things are never purely black or white. I have emphasized, for example, during my own case and other NSWBC activities, that by pointing criticism generally at the FBI, the good agents get unfairly lumped together with those whom the criticism is actually being leveled at. So to avoid that as much as possible we always try to be both specific and fair. Same is true for this project. There are some good solid reporters who work in the MSM and try to do their best, and in some cases they do, and are ‘allowed’ to do so. Let me give you an example. I have given specific New York Times related examples in several analyses posted in my series on the MSM at 123 Real Change, such as the delay in publishing the NSA Illegal Wiretap story. I was very specific in questioning motives, reasons, or excuses in that particular case.

On the other hand, if I were to give a few examples of who I consider to be solid, trustworthy, professional, and dependable reporters, my fairly short list would certainly include Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, both of whom work for the same New York Times. I hope I make this point clear. This new project will certainly acknowledge and credit positives, whenever possible, along its course. We will also offer the opportunity for anybody whose names are named to reply in response.

I encourage those of you with direct knowledge and experience to join this project by sharing your experiences. Please E-mail me with your report, and carefully follow the format provided below which includes an example of the first, of hopefully many, real-case stories to come:

1) Your name, title, and/or background:

Name: Mike Levine

Title: Retired Supervisory Special Agent/Covert Operations Specialist, DEA

Background: Michael Levine, one of DEA’s most decorated international undercover officers, is a veteran of 25 years of service. As an international undercover operative he witnessed the intentional destruction of undercover investigations targeting major international heroin and cocaine trafficking organizations who also happened to be CIA assets. Among the actions reported was blowing the cover of an undercover operation-Operation Trifecta- that had penetrated the top of a corrupt Mexican government, by Edwin Meese the then US Attorney General. When Michael’s attempts at alerting his superiors via in-house memorandums, and then mainstream media, were “buried,” and Michael himself placed under investigation, he went directly to the public in his books, the New York Times best-seller Deep Cover and the national best-seller The Big White Lie.

See more at Wikipedia…

2) The Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter:

Publication: Newsweek

Reporters: Larry Rohter and Steven Strasser

3) Description of Disclosure/Case/Issue and its Importance:

While stationed in Argentina, the CIA’s actions in sabotaging the undercover sting operation targeting La Mafia Cruzeña, resulted in the July 17, 1980 coup [Bolivia], wherein, as the State Department described it, for the first time in history, a drug trafficking organization took over a sovereign nation. It would be the beginning of what came to be known as “The Corporation,” described by Felix Milian Rodriquez — Medellin Cartel Money launderer, convicted of laundering $1 billion — as the most powerful drug smuggling organization on earth, in a secret session before the Kerry Commission.

At the time I was the DEA Country Attaché in Buenos Aires. I sent a registered letter, return receipt requested, to two Newsweek journalists, Larry Rohter and Steven Strasser-who had just written a rather long article that pretty much whitewashed the case and totally obfuscated US government involvement in aiding the traffickers to avoid prosecution and then in overthrowing the Bolivian government that had, in fact, aided DEA in conducting the sting operation that would have, in the opinion of many, crippled the traffickers. I asked them to contact me, at which time I would have given them the inside scoop of what I believe may have been the greatest act of deception and treason against the citizens we had all sworn to protect, perhaps in history, if one considers the aftermath of said revolution.

In any case, I received notification that the letter had been received by Newsweek. Two weeks later I was notified that I was under investigation by Internal Affairs, and that I was being removed from my post in Argentina. I would never hear from the two journalists.

4) The Method of Blackout or Tainted Outcome:

The story was buried-blacked out. Possibly the identity & provided information/documents were disclosed to government employer.

5) A brief personal message to any potential whistleblowers or our readers:

This information was published in my book THE BIG WHITE LIE in great detail and would be libelous as hell, were it not true. [Note from Sibel: As long as you are factual, credible, and speaking the truth, they can't touch you for divulging their 'unreported deeds.']

We will attempt to contact the reporter, editor or publication in question for comment before publishing any revelations like the above, from whistleblowers and other sources, in order to include any response those named may wish to offer along with the publication of your story. In the case above, Rohter and Strasser’s responses are below:

Response from Rohter and Strasser:

• Despite several requests for response, Steven Strasser did not reply.

• Larry Rohter, who now works at the New York Times replied to our first request for comment — which included the material above — as follows:

  
  

  Dear Ms. Edmonds: From what I see here, you’re not actually offering me a chance to respond to a posting you intend to make. Instead, you’re asking me to comment on an an old and discredited implied accusation made against me by someone I have never met and who, contrary to what he may claim, has never at any time made the slightest attempt to contact me personally or directly. The conspiracy brigade has been feeding off this carrion for years, and I’m really not at all interested in giving it new life on the internet. But if you are in fact willing to explain what it is that makes this paranoid rant relevant to what you intend to write, it might be possible to continue this exchange in writing. Are you saying that any comments of mine would be included in their entirety as part of your post?

  Or is it your intention to use any response selectively? Are you writing for the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition site, or are you writing on a personal site in connection with your individual grievances against the FBI? All of these issues are relevant and will guide me in determining whether or not I want to take this any further. Regards, Larry Rojhter

  We responded to all of Mr. Rohter’s questions, explaining where we intended to post this article, and that we planned to run any response he may have in full. Though we even followed up a second time, we received no further response in return.

IMPORTANT: Please adhere to the following in any submission:

• Don’t get too wordy and too lengthy in your account and description of the case.

• Be as specific as you can.

• Be fair: Make it clear if you are not sure whether the suspect party was the ‘reporter’ or the ‘editor’ or your government employer… We don’t want to accuse ‘unjustly.’

• If you wish to remain anonymous, you’ll need to directly persuade me of the legitimacy of your claim. I will keep all correspondence and your personal information confidential. As a whistleblower myself, and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, I understand the necessity for that in variou cases.

With your help, I look forward to helping to restore the important, once-vital Fourth Estate, so necessary to this country’s very survival.

* 123 Real Change attempts to authenticate the veracity of claims made by our sources whenever possible. However, all claims made are ultimately the responsibility of the sources making them.

Update 1:

Response by Mike Levine: “A copy of the letter and the original return receipt are still in my possession. They were presented to lawyers during the libel reading of “The Big White Lie,” and are available for all who want to see them.“

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…

Part 2- Pressure Points

‘Pressure’ is one of those buzzwords you hear in almost all discussions involving the mainstream media and related topics: Government Pressure, Corporate Pressure, Special Interest & Lobby Pressure, Management Pressure, Colleagues Pressure…It’s always pressure – whether its pressure placed directly on the reporter, editor, or on the board and or ownership…So how does it work? How much pressure? What methods are used? Of course, the answer largely depends on ‘who’ the pressure comes from (government or corporate or …), ‘who’ is the target of the pressure (is it the source, the reporter, etc.). For this post I am going to focus on what’s referred to as ‘government pressure,’ provide you with my take by providing context and case examples, and then let you bring in yours.

Just to make sure you understand – I don’t claim to be an expert, nor do I pretend to have all the right answers. I am drawing upon eight years of direct first hand experience in dealing with the media on my case, four years of interaction with the MSM on and with our organization and our National Security Whistleblowers, and years of association and friendship with many journalists, authors, attorneys and experts active in the area of national security and civil liberties. I am still seeking answers and looking for solutions…


Flexing Muscles

Many cases of the government resorting to intimidation and harassment to prevent a story from coming out go unreported. I suppose this proves the effectiveness of this method. The flexing muscles method ranges from subtle threats to overt harassment. Many of these cases go unreported simply because the ‘pressure’ takes care of the ‘problem,’ and the ‘pressured’ party, either due to the shame of giving in or the fear of ‘further pressure,’ goes mum into their grave.

Here is a case where government agents’ muscle flexing through overt harassment did not go unreported because the target happened to be an investigative journalist with a proven track record and integrity; a rare breed, indeed:

Bill Conroy is an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal and a contributing journalist for Narco News and an author. The Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press was one of very few outlets to report the story of the government’s harassment and intimidation, targeting Conroy for his reporting of a leaked memo regarding the centralized database for tracking terrorists.

“A leaked memo from the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security sparked its officials to interview a writer last month in an attempt to discover his source for an article on the online news service Narco News.”

You can read the story and the leaked memo in question here. The memo divulged that DHS supervisory agents in the field were directed to alter terrorism related files without preserving their original versions. This is equivalent to shredding during the pre-computer era. Rather important, right? The government then sent some agents who apparently were instructed to teach Conroy a lesson or two:

“Two agents came to his home and spoke to his wife while Conroy was at work, and appeared at his office the next day. Conroy, an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal, contributes to Narco News. The agents spoke to Conroy as well as his boss at the Journal in an apparent attempt to intimidate him into revealing his source, said Ron Tonkin, Conroy’s attorney.”

So they send a couple of tough looking agents with a mission to intimidate and harass. Send the agents to the target reporter’s office and have them treat him as a ‘criminal suspect,’ and make sure his colleagues and boss are around to watch… Send them to his house, make sure the neighbors see the agents knock on his door and flash their badges, and instruct them to intimidate the spouse and or the children. You might be surprised to learn how many ‘targeted reporters’ actually do get ‘pressured’ out of reporting in cases like this; how many divulge sources; and how many pledge not to ever enter the ‘no no zone’ again. Bill Conroy didn’t, but Conroy is among a tiny group…

“Bill Conroy did not divulge the source of the leak in his article and refused to when agents visited his home and workplace on May 23 and 24, respectively, asking for his sources in the department.”

And guess what? In the end, they couldn’t do anything to him. Shouldn’t this be a lesson to reporters who follow a different path?

“Although the agents reportedly mentioned speaking to the U.S. attorney, implying they might obtain a subpoena for the information, no such order has been issued. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of the western district of Texas declined comment. Calls to the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Professional Responsibility were not returned.”

Intimidation can also come in the form of a legal bluff. This approach seems to be gaining popularity since the September 11 attacks. The government can, and has been, using ‘National Security’ to declare many embarrassing or incriminating stories ‘classified.’ This allows them to flash their ‘we’ll take you to court’ card, and wait to see whether the target publication or reporter decides to ‘hold or fold or walk away.’

Let’s look at New York Times reporter James Risen’s case:

“A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to a reporter of The New York Times, apparently to try to force him to reveal his confidential sources for a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the reporter’s lawyers said Thursday.”

The same article emphasized that this trend is not isolated:

“Mr. Risen, who is based in Washington and specializes in intelligence issues, is the latest of several reporters to face subpoenas in leak investigations overseen by the Justice Department.”

How many reporters can afford the hefty legal fees to fight a case like this in court, when the government has at its disposal unlimited resources in dollars, legal maneuvering expertise, and manpower? Not many, I can assure you. Lucky lucky Risen! As for publications, also not many who’ll be willing. And unfortunately, not many reporters can easily secure pro-bono representation by a civil liberties organization with enough muscle to challenge the government. Thus many at an early stage, when ‘pressured’ by threats of legal action, give in and abandon a story yet to be written. Then add to this the recently revealed NSA targeting of journalists and you get the kind of pressure that may even eliminate the need for legal threats. Just the knowledge of being monitored is enough ‘pressure’ to dissuade many editors and reporters from pursuing‘radioactive’ cases in the first place.

The same government intimidation and threat tactics are also applied to ‘sources.’ Here is a brief account of my own experience:

In 2002, a few days before the airing of the CBS-60 Minutes segment on my case, my attorneys received a letter by fax from the Justice Department attorneys. The letter was to let us know that I would be pursued legally and severely if I went through with this interview. They strongly claimed that any information I was to disclose was being considered ‘classified.’ Of course, my attorneys knew better, and we didn’t bulge. And low and behold no ‘action’ ever came from the government following the airing of the segment. It was bluff, threat and intimidation; just that.

Not only did the government try to stop my appearance on the program, they took similar action with another FBI whistleblower, John Roberts, who also was interviewed for that same segment.


Source Pressures

Everyone knows ‘high-level government sources’ to reporters on politics and intelligence related matters is what the rolodex is in business. The net-worth, the value, of these reporters is frequently judged based on their ‘access.’ Sure; it makes sense. First, a reporter tries to make his/her way up the chain and establish the ‘relationship and trust’ necessary for this access. Next, and equally important, is to ‘maintain’ this relationship. This too makes sense, and is part of the job. Now, the question is, at what price? What are the things a reporter is willing to do, how far is he/she willing to go to ‘maintain’ his or her access?

Successful experienced journalists with a solid sense of ethics and integrity are good at ‘balancing’ when it comes to ‘source maintenance.’ This appears to be one of those disappearing qualities within the mainstream media. When the publication, the editors, lean towards, sorry, bend over, the government’s angle on stories, the reporters follow by compromising ‘a lot’ to keep and maintain their news/information ‘feeders’ within the government agencies.

I am going to provide you with another first-hand witnessed and documented incident. The only reason I am not naming ‘the well-known reporter & publication’ is to protect the source who obtained and passed on the incriminating documented evidence – the communication that occurred in writing between him and this particular ‘reporter.’

The individual who dealt with the congressional and press side of my case during the early stages of my whistleblowing journey wrote an e-mail to a well-known and well-placed journalist, saying, ‘Man, I can’t believe you guys did not cover this!!! Ashcroft comes out and invokes the State Secrets Privilege, first time ever asserted by the Bush administration, and you don’t write about it?! What the hell, man?! What’s the deal? I sent you the press release and attached a bunch of documents on that e-mail…’

Here is the response from that well-known journalist, and stupidly enough in writing: ‘I was going to call you. A few months ago I finally got this big DOJ guy, I mean BIG! Our deal-exclusive. You can’t do better than that in Washington. Anyhow, he doesn’t want us to touch Edmonds’ story. Period. I am not going to piss off my source for some God Damn translator whistleblower…’

The reporter’s refusal to cover the story was irrational – the State Secrets Privilege invocation was first released through an official DOJ press release and other major publications ran with the news. So what does this tell you? To maintain high-level government sources well-known reporters cut deals like this: You be my man, and I and what I cover will be yours. Unfortunately, through several reporter friends I was given many more examples and was told ‘that’s the name of the game when it comes to covering politics and government in this city.’

Soft Pressures

I touched on this type of pressure in the previous piece and in my last op-ed, and the recent revelations on Harman-New York Times provides both the context and case example. The fact that the NSA, DOJ and whatever other agency can softly ask the editors and management of the New York Times to sit on a major story involving criminal government action against it’s own people for over a year, and the request be complied with. The fact that a Congresswoman has enough ‘ins and pull’ to dial the decision-makers’ number at the New York Times and ask them ‘as a favor’ to not publish a story. The fact that a LA Times editor dutifully reports to NSA its source’s disclosure on wiretapping and the AT&T, takes his marching orders, comes back, and kills the story.

You see what I mean? There are many, many ‘soft pressure’ cases out there.

As with the various theories on the factors contributing to MSM degradation, the pressure styles can also be applied in combination. While the Justice Department attorneys are ‘flexing muscles’ by threatening the information source with legal action, their Attorney General or Deputy or whomever can be making his ‘soft’ call to dissuade the editor from moving forward with the story, and their Special Agent in Charge of whatever department may be summoning his ‘pet reporter’ to ban him from working on this same target story.

Those of you who’ve been following my case, and those familiar with my previous writings and speeches, surely have a pretty good idea as to how I view the MSM. As a reminder here are a few excerpts from my latest piece:

But the story is almost dead – ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media’s insistence on burying ‘real’ issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation’s continuous downward slide.
…

The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media are known universally and seem to have been accepted as a fact of life.

For me, the importance and impact of the current state of our mainstream media go beyond my own personal take or direct experience. This happens to be a central issue for our organization, NSWBC, and its 150+ whistleblower members. We have yet to announce it (call it a dreaded un-pleasantry if you will), but our organization has suspended all its congressional activities. We did so in spring 2007, a few months after the new majority took over. So what have we been doing, advocating? In a nutshell, we’ve been advising those who may be in the process of disclosure, to do so, if they can, anonymously, and directly, by making the criminal and or wrongdoing cases and the supporting documents/sources public. As many of you already know, case after case, filing with IG offices, and briefing the appropriate congressional committees, has proven to be futile. In fact, considering all the latest on the true-workings of our ‘real’ congress, approaching them with whistleblower cases involving law enforcement and intelligence agencies would be a true mockery…

Okay, back to the media. How does the media fit into this? Well, we, the NSWBC, are in the position where we are asked to provide guidance to potential and current whistleblowers on ‘who’ or ‘where’ to go to disclose. Based on my experience and knowledge of ‘who-is-who’ in the MSM sector, based on cumulative direct experiences of our current members, and based on advice by a few trusted experts in this sector, to say we have a very short list would be an understatement. Let me put it this way: we provide them with a fairly extensive list of ‘No-No’ people in the MSM

I know many of you want to stop me right here and say, ‘but there’s the internet! There are these fairly visible alternative news sources and forums on the net they should go and offer the info to…’ I will get to that and address the pros and cons of it later. But the majority of whistleblowers or those in the process of decision making on disclosure are weary and skeptical of the blogosphere landscape. Again, let’s keep that thought, since we’ll be discussing it soon.

In the next few days I’ll be posting a series of either 4 or 5 pieces on the MSM, examining brief important historical facts and cases, current relevant cases, and of course adding my own un-bashful comments. Most importantly, I am hoping to get your input via your comments, whether by additional links to relevant information, or your own view and theories – I would love to hear them all.

It’s impossible to pinpoint the current sorry state of the MSM to one or two factors, since, at least to me, it seems to be caused by several factors, but here are the usual theories we hear out there on the mainstream media’s current state:

1. Government Agents: CIA-Media reporting as seen in Operation Mockingbird, or embedded Pentagon pawns like Judith Miller, or Hoover style censorship of the MSM.

2. Lazy Journalism on the Cheap: The publications no longer pay for, budget for, real ‘investigative journalism,’ thus, you get your typical stenographers who make their one or two calls to their ‘usual sources’ right from their desks, and write as dictated.

3. Government Pressure, Harassment, and even Blackmail: Cases like James Risen (NY Times) and Bill Conroy (an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal) are good examples.

4. Self-Censorship: Based on this theory, with just a little massaging patriotism kicks in with many of these so-called journalists (whether it’s the Cold War, or, the Post 9/11 war on terror), and that does the job for the government propagandists.

5. Americans Want Entertainment not Real News: Some suggest that after commute-work-commute-kids & household chores, basically, exhausted with day-to-day work, hassles, stress, and pressure, people don’t want serious and grim realities. They want to tune in to Brittney’s latest panties, or Brangelina’s latest baby conquest.

6. Corporate Owned Media: Powerful Corporations are becoming a major influence, and ownership concentrated as a result of mega mergers…

7. Combination of some or all of the above

8. None of the Above

I am sure I have missed some other equally important theories/hypothesis, so at this point I am turning this discussion over to you. Which explanation, or call it a theory if you like, do you subscribe to? Why? Here is what I’d like us to do. I will be covering the theories in the 4 or 5 part upcoming series, but before the detailed coverage, on this post I’d like to ask for your preliminary input: Please take a look at them, give each some thought, and let me know which one(s) you subscribe to, and why? If your stand is #8, then provide us with your own view not listed and enlighten us as to why.
It will be interesting to have this done again, after the upcoming series, after we discuss and debate each theory/angle, and see whether we have narrowed or expanded our diagnosis of this diseased fourth branch.

Responding to Questions & Clarifying a Few Points

I can’t believe it’s already been a week since my last op-ed piece, ‘In Congress We Trust…Not,’ was released. Where did the ‘week’ go?! Interestingly, the latest on torture and the Democrats who had known it all along and for too long has revived the e-mail spree with comments on relevancy or applicability of the piece. So, the piece is not completely dead yet, and it may not be too late to respond to a few points brought up by readers…

Most people got the irony of my quoting Senator Kerry, but some misunderstood and mistook me as an admirer of his:

For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: “It’s a sad day when you have members of congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken.”

The main reason I quoted Kerry was to show the ‘hypocrisy’ of these politicians. The unwritten obvious there being ‘When was the last time you called for disciplining of a fellow corrupt or criminal congressman, Mr. Kerry.’ And, here, on record, no, I am not an admirer of Senator Kerry. Paleeeeze! Oh, and I am still not over that ‘Duck Hunting’ fiasco of his during the 2004 Campaign!

Some readers ‘couldn’t believe’ I was so naïve and or uninformed to have hoped for ‘real’ change via electing Obama.

Please read the corresponding paragraph:

I, like many others, believed that changing the congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they’ve been let down.

As you can see, the first sentence includes ‘me.’ Yes- I was naïve or excessively optimistic (all right, let’s say it – even stupid to a degree) to entertain that hope for the 2006 congressional elections, but not for the 2008 Presidential Race. I did not vote for Mr. Obama. I went by his record, not by his ‘elegantly crafted’ words. Neither did I vote for McCain. Okay, that’s as far as I’ll go in terms of whom I did NOT vote for. Let’s leave it at that

There are those who argued that it wasn’t fair to ‘write off’ President Obama’s change so soon, about 100 days or so into his presidency.

I understand their point, and I must say I envy their purity and optimism, but I differ. In fact, I can turn that ‘only 100 days’ logic and make the opposite point. If in a hundred days, give or take, he’s done so much to either continue (stay) or expand upon the previous administration’s abuses, how much more damage is he going to do in ‘(4 X 365)-100’ days?! I am talking about Obama not only continuing but actually expanding upon the State Secrets Privilege to gag and bury information; completely forgoing accountability on torture – first starting with the torturers, then the previous White House cabal, and now extending it to those who drafted it; sustaining the illegal NSA wiretapping; deciding to bring back the Bush style military commission…just don’t get me started on this. Currently I am working on my next piece, exactly on this particular point, so, more on this, soon.

A few, including a friend whom I admire a great deal, Coleen Rowley, thought that the emphasis on changing the representatives, “If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can’t protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don’t need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives.”—Will Rogers, should be accompanied by an emphasis on needed ‘systemic changes’ to help prevent the new-comers from succumbing to the same temptations and ending up in the same place many are today: in the pockets of this or that interest.

I wholeheartedly agree, but we must also make sure that we’ll go further than putting in place some Act(s), such as Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), or, passing some new lengthy laws with exceptions and loopholes galore in a myriad of footnotes…Without enforcement we will still end up in the same place. How do we come up with truly ‘independent’ bodies to oversee and investigate congress? Who will be given the power to enforce? Etc., etc., etc… For instance, take a look at those ‘Inspector General’ offices- they lack independence (report to the head of the department they oversee!), and they have ‘zero’ say over implementation of recommended changes, even if they had a certain degree of integrity…But do you know how it started? People got fed up with abuses, waste and fraud in Executive branch offices, and said: let’s pass some legislation, establish overseeing entities, and have a place where people can go and report wrongdoing/waste/fraud/abuse. And, they got it; all in theory: The Office of Inspector General (OIG). Did it solve anything? Forget about solving, did it even reduce the level of abuse/corruption? Sadly, the answer is NO. In fact, by giving that illusion, it completely wiped away any chance of real reform.

Let me know if you have other questions or comments regarding this piece.

As I mentioned I am currently working on a piece on ‘Change.’ You thought this piece was grim and depressing?! You ain’t seen nothin yet Who knows how long it will take, but I’ll keep you posted. Meanwhile, in the next few days, I’ll have a few posts you may find interesting and controversial.