Leaking Against the Impossible: Whistleblower John Kiriakou, CIA Torture and Leaking
“What about the CIA
officers who directly violated the law, who carried out interrogations
that resulted in death? What about the torturers of Hassan Ghul?” –
John Kiriakou, Democracy Now, Feb 10, 2014
He was the only agent of the Central
Intelligence Agency to blow the otherwise hesitant whistle on the
torture program made infamous by the Bush administration. And for all
that good grace, he paid with a prison sentence, having violated the
covenant of the espionage service. In 2007, John Kiriakou publicly
confirmed and noted the use of waterboarding by agents in dealing with
terrorist suspects. And it hardly came with bells and whistles.
His CIA credentials as officer and analyst
were well minted – 14 years in service, and designated head of the
operation that led to the finding of al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in
2002. It should be noted that Kiriakou was no angel coming late to a
feast of innocence. As an agent, he had been privy to the darker sides
of the supposed “war on terror”. He had also, at one point, defended
waterboarding as a practice. In his own words to Scott Shane of The New York Times, “I think the second-guessing of 2002 decisions is unfair.”
In January 2013, he was sentenced to
two-and-a-half years, pleading guilty to confirming the identity of a
covert officer to Shane. Material for a second story was also provided
to another reporter, which also involved disclosing the name of another
agent. A plea bargain ensued, trimming a sentence, but affirming his
guilt. He is currently under a house arrest term of three months.
This case reveals, as do whistleblowing
cases in general, that the discloser is presumed to be guilty, the
tribal member who went against the creed. The result of that disclosure
– exposing an illegal program, implemented by individuals who, one
would think, would be the subject of prosecution – is evaded. Twisted
logic ensues: the perpetrator of abuse escapes the exposure; and the one
doing the exposing received due punishment. Rules, not substance,
matter.
As Assistant Director in Charge of the
case, James W. McJunkin, explained after Kiriakou’s plea with an almost
vulgar clarity, “Disclosing classified information, including the names
of CIA officers, to unauthorized individuals is a clear violation of the
law.”[1]
Kiriakou, it was noted, had conceded to sign “secrecy and
non-disclosure agreements” to the effect of not disclosing such material
to unauthorised persons.
Some commentary on Kiriakou has been
ambivalent, cutting fine distinctions as to the nature of sensitive
leaks on the one hand, and their supposed effect on the other. There
are generic leaks, and then, suggests Seth Mandel, writing in Commentary (Jan
7, 2013), there are those naughty, destructive leaks that sink the
state. “First of all, not all leaks are created equal: some are legal
and others break federal law. Second, some leaks are clearly damaging
to national security, and thus put Americans in unnecessary danger.”[2]
Mandel seeks to draw one example out of the hat of bad leaks – the New York Times’ decision
to publish details of a successful clandestine program used by the
government to monitor and track the finances behind terrorist activity.
“The program was legal and constitutional, but the Times saw an opportunity to damage the Bush administration’s national security efforts, and took it – safety to Americans be damned.”
But Mandel misses the vital point: that
such distinctions are artificially made when it comes to prosecuting
leakers, and those connected with the process. It follows, as a rule,
that any such disclosure breaks the law irrespective of the motivation
of the whistleblower, or the damning quality of the material. The onus
is on the whistleblower to deny or disprove his or her putative
illegality, to dig deep into the legislative drawer to find viable
defences.
Then come the more troubling apologias
scripted by the White House. Presidential candidate Barack Obama may
have expressed his concerns about torture, but President Obama wore a
different, adjusted hat when in office.
In 2009, he cooled on the issue of whether
to prosecute those in government who had made the program possible. In
August 2014, he would show considerable latitude to the torturer whose
task it was to defend the United States, despite breaching the law in
cavalierly bloody fashion. “I understand why it happened. I think it’s
important, when we look back, to recall how afraid people were when the
twin towers fell.”[3] Fear
justifies bestial retaliation, fuelling the engine of vengeance. The
odds, in other words, lengthen for such individuals as Kiriakou, who
ended up disclosing improper conduct that was looked upon favourably by
excusing authorities.
Obama goes even further, using the desk
defences that were dismissed at such trials as those of Adolf Eichmann.
“It’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect
about the tough job those folks had.” The patriotic brute of pen and
action is well and truly alive – as long as the job is tough.
Assessments made as to whether a “leak” is
damaging are shoddy at best, largely because they are based on the grand
hypothetical that is “national security” – protective measures that
seek justifications in the vaguest, most nominal of terms. Justifying
the concealment of a torture program can be justified by any source keen
to conserve the illusion that rights trump the security machinery of
the state, even if that state is the US. We really are good chaps who
tend to err in the name of goodness.
Process, in its uncritical, unthinking
form, is what matters in the cult of security; the quality of the
classified material – revealing, for instance, a program of abuse – is
irrelevant to an establishment that simply assumes that its own secret
status is threatened. This flaw in exposing abuses in governance, and
in a specific sense, intelligence processes, is a defect that has been
treated, less with relief than contempt. The reformers on this subject,
at least, remain at bay, since the problematic assumptions still hold
sway.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment