On the other hand, as Nelson notes, Feinstein's Democratic colleague Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) was one of the few in Congress whose moral compass appears to be pointing north. He stood up to oppose the NSA-surveillance programs Snowden exposed - programs that insofar as we can gather are still 'Johnny Walker' despite the brouhaha - and "bristled" at the notion of equating the "criminal conduct" of Petraeus with Snowden's efforts at informing the American public of information to which they had a right to know. In Grayson's summation the contrasts were stark indeed, and not in Petraeus' favour. Whereas Petraeus "violated the law to impress a girlfriend", Snowden released confidential information in the public interest -- to "bring attention to overwhelming and pervasive constitutional violations".
In Grayson's assessment of the respective merits of each case, at great personal costs and sacrifice, Snowden revealed,
"... the fact that the Fourth Amendment seems to be shredded, the fact that the constitutional requirements of probable cause and particularity have been thrown out the window -- these are things we never would have known but for his actions."
As for hopes the Obama administration might treat Snowden with even greater forbearance (or for that matter Sterling and other less-exalted leakers and whistleblowers in the crosshairs), Grayson doubts that will happen. As he notes,
"Petraeus is part of the club and Edward Snowden is not. I don't expect the kind of leniency that was shown to someone who is an insider will also be conferred on someone who is an outsider, particularly when you view the administration's abysmal record regarding whistleblowers in general."
Such are the contrasts then. One rule it appears then for those on the inside looking out, and another for those on the outside looking in. If you're a true patriot with a conscience, then your chances of receiving a fair hearing in the U.S. justice system appear to be zero. That is the Washington "mindset", one that shows few signs of reversing itself anytime soon.
It is once again Ray McGovern who provides us with useful insights into the inequities embedded in these "contrasts". In fact he brings us a very personal - one might say arresting - take on the Petraeus soap opera. It was in October 2014 that the indefatigable activist was unceremoniously arrested in New York for attempting to ask the exalted general some probing questions at a public forum where Petraeus was due to give a speech.
McGovern not only suffered severe injuries as a result of being nicked; further insult was added when he was charged with allegedly resisting said arrest, [and with] disorderly conduct and criminal trespass. The latter charge was especially curious given that he'd purchased a 'ticket to ride' to the event, and was as entitled as anyone else attending to be there. It was notable although not entirely surprising that this incident was all but ignored by the MSM, but received broad exposure in the alternative media.
McGovern, for his part, in his critique of the general, is measured but nonetheless unsparing. To begin with he equates the outcome of the Petraeus decision to that of the "Too-Big-to-Jail" Wall Streeters, all of whom were spared Big Time in the Big House, all done so presumably according the dictates of Bierce's earlier definition of "amnesty".
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
