Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 1/18/12

NSA buŸllshitt: Refusing to Return Whistleblowers' Computers

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments
Message Daily Kos
NSA buYllshitt: Refusing to Return Whistleblowers' Computers

  By Jesselyn Radack  for DailyKos Diaries

In a response to a lawsuit filed by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe,  Thomas Drake , Bill Binney, and Edward Loomis, and former congressional staffer Diane Roark, NSA incredibly claims that there is classified information on Wiebe's computer,   reports  Josh Gerstein of Politico .

The whistleblowers filed the suit in November seeking property seized in the retaliatory criminal investigation, which targeted four complainants to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG), Binney, Wiebe, Roark, and Loomis, and key DoD IG witness, Drake, and resulted in the Justice Department's spectacularly failed    Espionage Act case against Drake.  

You'd think after the malicious classification chicanery in the Drake case, the Justice Department and NSA would have learned their lesson. Obviously, if the unreturned property contained such damning information, the Justice Department would have used it against Drake at trial, since most of the "evidence" the government tried to introduce against him was deemed to be unclassified can caused their case to crumble.

The fact that NSA's Signals Intelligence Directorate Deputy now claims that two documents contain information that is "currently and properly" classified at an uber-secret level suggests that these documents were only deemed so after a "forced classification review" of the seized items, just as had been done to Thomas Drake--about which Bush's former classification czar (J. William Leonard) said he had never seen a "more deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document."

A couple of points on the government's secrecy-abusing response:

(1)   The FBI seized these computers in 2007 - over four years ago   - as part of the years-long, millions-spent but completely fruitless hunt for the sources of the Pulitzer Prize-winning   New York Times   article that exposed NSA's constitutionally-dubious warrantless wiretapping program. Now the government claims it needs   more time   to analyze two hard drives:  

Because of the size of emerging technologies in digital storage media, analysis of oftentimes an arduous process . . .


Given the volume of the hard disk drives, and the time it will take to perform a complete review to separate classified from unclassified information, a time consuming process is expected.

Is this part of NSA's fear-mongering rhetoric?? Because it scares the heck out of me that over four years is not enough time for the country's most powerful data collection agency to analyze two hard drives. Supposedly it's an "arduous process." (No wonder NSA needs to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on storage facilities.)

(2) How does the government propose the Court handle the apparently-infinite time needed to go through two hard drive seized in 2007? By putting the case in the hands of a magistrate instead of federal Judge Richard D. Bennett. It is no surprise NSA would prefer Judge Bennett not handle the case involving an unjustifiable government delay and outlandish secrecy claims. Judge Bennett is wise to NSA's hysterical, unfounded cries of secrecy having presided over the failed case against Drake, and Bennett  lambasted the Justice Department for the 2 1/2 year delay between the 2007 raid on Drake's home and 2010 indictment saying such an "unconscionable" delay "did not past the smell test," and comparing it to British abuses of colonial Americans. 

For his part, Wiebe was skeptical about the government's newest secrecy assertions, telling Politico ,

"I am dismayed to hear the government thinks there is classified information on either or both of my two computers.  Frankly, I wouldn't put classified information on my computers.  After 32 plus years in the business, you don't do that sort of thing, and -- again frankly speaking -- I could not conceive of a need to ever do so . . ."

Weibe's skepticism is justifiable. In February 2010, the government gave both him and Bill Binney immunity from criminal prosecution. (Drake, Binney and Wiebe are clients of my organization, the Government Accountability Project ).

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 2   Supported 2   Valuable 2  
Rate It | View Ratings

Daily Kos Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

articles reprinted from

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Just Read FBI Deputy Director McCabe's Statement Regarding His Firing By Trump... Just Read It.

Rush Limbaugh's Sponsor List

Comcast favors Fox News, charges $204 more for MSNBC package. ACTION NEEDED

A Christmas Present From Hucky Boo Boo Sanders, She's Leaving WH The End Of The Year

Ron Paul takes lead In Iowa, Newt Gingrich falls off cliff

Republican Bill Bans Non-Church Marriages

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend