Second, according to Risen, after a Russian middleman (codenamed "Merlin") handed over the information to the Iranian embassy in Vienna on behalf of the CIA, an unnamed 'Company' case officer, in an email to an Iranian official in the course of the operation -- wait for this -- "accidentally" included the identities of every CIA agent in Iran. This official -- a double agent no less -- did what double agents do and turned this information over to Iranian security officials with the end result that several CIA folks will not be collecting their pensions.
Although there are a few insightful commentators in the mainstream and alternative media who were watching this trial closely and reporting on it with some measure of objectivity and veracity (albeit with variable degrees of concern regarding the implications), one such individual who did provide us with a cogent, useful analysis of the Sterling case is former CIA analyst turned activist Ray McGovern.
We'll return to McGovern's insights shortly, but first we need a bit more context and perspective.
When the NYT caved under pressure from the Bush administration and declined to publish the Merlin story (predictably citing the catch-all "national security" canard as their rationale), Risen off his own bat published a book called State of War wherein amongst other choice snippets of 'under the counter' intrigues of the Washington crypto-statists, he gave up the 'skinny' on the whole Merlin enchilada. It was only then the NYT belatedly decided to publish the story, a decision doubtless driven by its resolve to preserve its status as the first to print without fear or favour all the news that's fit to print and add further burnish its standing as the "paper of record".
For their part the CIA have always maintained it was Sterling who leaked this information to Risen, yet the evidence was always thin. Although for several years the CIA/DOJ had Risen himself on their 'prosecute with extreme prejudice' agenda for refusing to reveal his sources, they then backed off on the NYT journalist himself and in lieu placed Sterling in the legal crosshairs. This was despite compelling evidence Risen's source(s) could have been any number of people.
At all events in the case of Sterling, the prejudice, indeed malice, was extreme indeed, and it's difficult to escape the conclusion the dearth of evidence was overshadowed by such feelings. We can only assume from all of this the powers that be aren't quite ready to go the 'full monty' and prosecute and jail journalists of Risen's stature and profile for refusing to reveal their sources. In this respect one suspects Sterling represented much easier prey.
That aside though, given that "prevailing mindset", it remains a mystery as to how Risen has been able to hold onto his job at the NYT over this imbroglio. This is after all a corporate media outlet that feels little embarrassment or shame about shackling itself and its journalistic ethics to the agenda of all those folks -- especially the previously cited neo-conservatives and their offsiders the so-called liberal interventionists -- driving U.S. national security and foreign policy.
Moreover, from this we can also safely surmise that notwithstanding the agency's positioning statement, "the truth shall set you free" -- etched in marble in the foyer of its Langley fortress so everyone gets the point -- the "truth" as most of us have come to know it in this case clearly has limits. It's either that or the CIA -- and one imagines the mainstream media (MSM) itself -- long ago developed its own definition of said "truth" and is keeping that to itself for a 'rainy day'. Put simply, the Langley 'farmhands' don't like having alternative realities to their own singularly versioned "truth" aired anywhere in the broad public domain.
Again with space precluding an in depth exposition of the complex legalities of the Sterling case itself, it is the implications of the outcomes of this truly Kafkaesque trial for legitimate leakers, genuine whistleblowers and investigative journalists of all stripes that are of greater interest. Of greater significance is the broader consideration of what is aptly called the 'criminalisation of dissent', including even what we might call 'conscionable' dissent.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
3
