John Kiriakou - Whistle Blower or Criminal? and Debra Saunders - Conservative Tool

Debra Saunders in her latest San Francisco Chronicle blog John Kiriakou, ex-spy and media darling- facilely argues that the charges against John Kiriakou are not for revealing agents who engaged in torture, but rather for revealing their names and compromising intelligence agents, thus dismissing as irrelevant the intent behind the deed.  




Her actions collaborate in the worst way with the administration's attempts to defend itself from accusations of illegal activities through narrowly framed assaults on whistleblowers, and confirms her preeminent status of conservative tool for the Chronicle.


The government's and Saunders' arguments are interesting, if some what ingenuous.   Here we have a whistle-blower who is revealing what he sees to be a gross violation of human rights and the law, and rather than discuss this, and the validity of these actions, Debra focuses on the narrowly defined governmental accusations transparently tailored to avoid the key issue - if a crime has been committed what are the duties, obligations and rights of the whistleblower to expose such crimes, and what is the administration's obligation to consider them.  Rather than consider the merits of the actions, the assail the actions themselves.


Seriously, if CIA operatives engaged in torture (I know that the definition of "torture" is  a tricky question right up there with "what is sex?," or "what's the difference between a 'contribution' and a 'bribe'?"or what is earned income?" for most politicians), and we have a government that is not at all interested in discussing, clarifying, or bringing to the public light the issue, hiding every action behind a facade of "National Security", then how are We the People supposed to understand what is going on here if a few brave souls don't step forward and expose them?


And where is the accountability for the actions of the shadow figures that engage in torture if they hide behind questionable National Security filings and findings?  Where is the public's right to know and understand what crimes against individuals and humanity our leaders and government have, are, and are planning to commit?  Where is the role of the justice department in holding our leaders and their agents accountable for their actions?  Where are the rights of the individual who has been violated and tortured?  Do we want to live in a nation where torture is sanctioned and practiced?


No, I'm sorry, Debra's argument that revealing names is wrong in this case is not only wrong, but collaborates with the very torturers themselves in its intent.  Just because you are an intelligence agent, doesn't mean you have immunity for your actions. 


If we have defined systematic torture as part of our national defense strategy, then those engaged in it should be exposed and jailed; so too should those who either authorized or turned a blind eye to it in their managerial and executive capacities.


To discover this, and put it in the public's eye for condemnation will break a few eggs to be sure, but is required to keep this the land of the free.

Now those who argue (as the government's affidavit does) that Mr. Kiriakou signed documents recognizing that he had access to classified information and was required to maintain the secrecy of that information have learned nothing from history.  Our own prosecutors held during the Nuremberg trials that "just following orders" is not a defense when violating human rights - we hung people for this crime - remember?  So if someone in our government is aware of these crimes - say the fabrication of the reason to go to war against a foreign state in violation of law, or the torturing of people in this example, then they are beholden not just to not engage in the activity, but to escalate concerns about it internally; and if no action is taken (as is presumptively the case here) then to go public with the case.


As usual Debra Saunders reveals through her op-eds the degree to which she is a tool of the conservative edge of this nation that would repeal our freedoms and rights to earn some modicum of security.  








As Benjamin Franklin once said - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."