The conviction of former CIA case officer Jeffrey Sterling for allegedly leaking details of a failed CIA operation and effective 'amnesty' for former CIA chief David Petraeus for giving classified material to his lover/biographer tells much about the political mindset in America, not to mention what's wrong with the U.S. justice system. As Greg Maybury reports, none of this is a good look for the world's greatest democracy.

::::::::

The U.S. Justice Department prosecution of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) case officer Jeffrey Sterling for allegedly revealing details to New York Times (NYT) investigative journalist James Risen of one of its less-successful covert operations highlights much of what is seriously wrong with the contemporary mindset that prevails in foreign-policy circles and across the broader Beltway. Along with showcasing the inequities rooted in the U.S. justice system, the prosecution and subsequent trial brought into sharp relief once again the obsequious compliance of the corporate (or mainstream) media with the agenda of the national-security obsessives that populate the neo-conservative and liberal-interventionist firmament.

Now, with Sterling's sentencing pending later this month, it is timely to revisit the backstory of this case and consider its broader implications.

The Sterling case involved Risen's own efforts in 2006 to publish a story in the NYT detailing the CIA's convoluted and ultimately botched attempt during the Clinton administration to provide Iran with flawed nuclear-device schematics. The objective of this operation was to sabotage Iran's nuclear-weapons program, one that reportedly the CIA chaps weren't even sure existed at the time or for that matter whether the Iranians really had ambitions in that respect. To this day, this doubt remains.

Codenamed Operation Merlin, this ill-fated, misadventure in Spy v Spy subterfuge is one of the most bizarre, cockamamie plots ever seeded and harvested down on the Langley Farm. And in the annals of The Company's heroic exploits in the defence of freedom, democracy, truth, justice and the American Way, that's a 'call' for which there's serious competition. In fact, it's difficult to imagine master spy storyteller John Le Carre would've risked insulting his readers' intelligence devising such a scheme as a remotely plausible plot device.

Of course the Iranians' purported efforts to develop a nuclear-weapons program has been for some time - and remains - one of the defining and divisive strategic issues of our time, an observation evidenced by the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's recent dog 'n pony show presented for the U.S. Congress. If it wasn't for the fact that Russia itself has its own formidable nuclear-weapons arsenal, in geopolitical terms this issue might rival in significance the portentous standoff between the U.S. and its former Cold War nemesis over the Ukraine.

The Truth Might Set you Free

What's not "difficult to imagine" though is why the CIA folks would want to keep the specifics of this murky little black-op debacle from receiving wide-lens exposure. And although many CIA insiders would have us believe otherwise, it has little to do with national security.

Such is the byzantine nature of this story that an in-depth rendering herein is not possible, and in any event it has been well covered especially throughout the course of Sterling's trial. Suffice it to say that the outcome of this utterly reckless operation generated double-barreled 'blowback' -- the spooks' worst nightmare. And by pursuing at first Risen, then Sterling, in the manner in which they have done, the CIA for reasons best known to themselves seem hell bent on shooting themselves once again in the foot.

To begin with, in handing over even flawed blueprints for the nukes, the CIA inadvertently delivered information to the Iranians they almost certainly could have used to advance any weapons program. That is of course if and/or when they do decide to get serious about it because as indicated -- the Israeli PM's Congressional bluff 'n bluster aside -- few appear really certain what their intentions are. This apparently includes key figures in Israel's own intelligence services, who themselves appear to be singularly at odds with their own leader over the issue.

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.

That such implications should also be of great interest to discerning news consumers, freedom-of-speech advocates and defenders of democracy in general, is a given. It is moreover crucial that such understandings reach critical mass if there is any hope of preserving the integrity of the civic culture of the republic and everything it supposedly stands for. It seems though unfortunately for the vast majority -- who might accurately be termed the political 'walking dead' -- all of this will continue to go unnoticed for the foreseeable future.

Dude, where's our reputation?

As noted earlier, Ray McGovern offered some cogent insights into the Sterling 'show-trial', which recently concluded with the jury returning a verdict of guilty. In McGovern's view, the trial had "multiple purposes" beyond simply proving that Sterling "leaked some secrets" to a journalist. For the CIA it was a chance, he says, to

"... contest the widespread impression that it [the CIA] is some bumbling intelligence agency that comes up with harebrained schemes."

Put crudely, the world's premier spy marque was smarting over the damage to its brand image, and instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, it wants someone - anyone - to pay for said "damage". Can't get Risen? OK, the next best thing will have to do!

Insofar as its image and reputation is concerned, it's no secret (sorry) the CIA has suffered numerous 'setbacks' over the decades, a frequently self-inflicted outcome that we can safely say is mostly a product of its own deep-rooted, 'law-unto-itself', 'we can do no wrong' hubris. These included not least, most recently, the revelations about extraordinary rendition, torture, black sites and various other extra-legal initiatives in and around the responses to dealing with suspected terrorists in the wake of 9/11. Compounding this then is the litany of monumental intelligence failures going way back beyond 9/11 and the non-existent 'slam-dunk' WMDs, to the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, and even to the Cambridge spy-ring days of the Sixties.

And that's just the "failures", to say nothing about the "family jewels", themselves well documented in author John Prados' excellent book The Family Jewels, the CIA, Secrecy, and Presidential Power. These include its links to various assassination, drug-running, gun-smuggling, and money-laundering activities being only a part of the mosaic of misdeed and malfeasance, the designation "family jewels" both ironic and euphemistic in equal measure.

For his part, Prados highlights the central importance of the rule of law in a democracy and the "special tensions" this creates with respect to intelligence activities, who "[by nature] work to or at the edge of or beyond the law". This situation, he adds,

"... makes public confidence vital. The uneasy relationship between secret agencies and public order requires that intelligence maintains the highest standards of discipline and accountability. Anything that challenges public confidence is harmful."

This being the reality, we might reasonably determine then that the CIA does not get 'it', "it" being the "public-confidence" thing. In pursuing the Sterling case to its limits and with the resulting publicity that comes with doing so, most objective observers would say the CIA is further undermining that "public confidence". By drawing even more attention to its history of highly questionable "standards of discipline and accountability", it is fueling the blowback, albeit "blowback" of a different kind.

With all this in mind, to paraphrase an indelible slice of popular culture, one might say all this is a case of, "Dude, where's our reputation?" Where indeed, one might well ask? One might even be tempted to ask in response, "What reputation was that?"

As McGovern points out, another key purpose of the Sterling (mis)trial is that it was something of a test case. Although a loss for the USG/CIA/DOJ prosecutorial axis would doubtless have been an embarrassing setback, win or lose, it was still nonetheless an opportunity to "intimidate... other potential whistleblowers" who would dare expose to the public more evidence that the CIA is "just such a bumbling intelligence agency", the spy world's own version of the Keystone Kops.

To cap this withering assessment off, McGovern observes the following -- for the USG/CIA/DOJ, the trial:

"... [P]rovides some protection for the next time the government needs some made-to-order 'intelligence' to justify another conflict like the Iraq War. In that way, the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling is a deterrent to future officials, who might be tempted to commit the unpardonable sin of putting loyalty to their conscience and the Constitution ahead of the non-disclosure contract they signed earlier as a condition of employment." [My emphasis]

[Author Note: As of this writing, Sterling is awaiting sentencing in about 2 weeks hence, and is facing years if not decades in prison. For additional commentary on the Sterling trial as it was progressing, see here, here, here, and for further commentary on Sterling's conviction, see here.]

The Sterling case provides a stark counterpoint to that of Golden Boy of the military and national security elites, MSM and neo-con pin-up/centrefold, and former CIA boss General David Petraeus no less, who provided hard copy classified information to his lover and biographer Paula Broadwell. Petraeus, who was effectively forced to resign over his affair with Broadwell, recently received what can only be described as a 'rap over the knuckles' for this serious breach of security, and from a CIA chief no less.

In short Petraeus got to walk, an outcome that for many Washington observers was as inevitable as it was inequitable. The early twentieth-century American columnist and political satirist Ambrose Bierce once mischievously defined "amnesty" as the state's magnanimity toward those offenders whom it would be too 'expensive' to punish, and it is with Petraeus that this definition really comes into its own.

Further, one can easily say that Petraeus' sordid, covert little romp with his much-younger and not unattractive biographer was overshadowed by his own attempts to impress her with such disclosures in the first instance and then cover up this breach by lying to FBI investigators. Insofar as we can gather though these indiscretions did little to dim the good general's lights on Capitol Hill. No surprises there of course. This is after all the Iraq 'surge hero', the man who with all the humility he could seemingly muster all but claimed to have won the war in Iraq, an assertion that given the current state of play in the former cradle of civilisation is one that calls into question the very definition of what constitutes a military victory. In the Washington milieu though, this was never going to happen. The Petraeus myth was - and it would appear, remains - rock solid. If it did indeed die, it has since been reanimated.

Space herein precludes a complete retelling of Petraeus' putative fall from grace. But it is the contrast between how Sterling and others of a similar ilk (such as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and others) are treated by the same legal system for their alleged crimes and misdemeanors, and the leniency, if not outright exoneration, provided by the criminal-justice system for folks like Petraeus, which is of considerable importance.

As Steven Nelson reported, in view of the Petraeus decision, supporters of Snowden are now calling for a similar deal for the star of "Citizen Four". Nelson places the situations of both men in sharp relief from the off and virtually challenges readers to argue against Snowden being accorded similar treatment. After noting that one man (Petraeus) leaked to his mistress "secret information for use in a biography about himself and then lied about it", the other (Snowden) openly shared secrets,

".... to stop what he saw as improper mass surveillance, spawning Supreme Court-bound lawsuits, presidential policy pivots and global concern about privacy."

The Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Club - Members Only

It's clear also that the folks on Capitol Hill view stark differences between the two men's situations, yet possibly not in the same vein as Nelson's piece seems to indicate. In the same article the journalist observed that there appeared no shortage of folks in Congress -- again tellingly, across the political spectrum -- circling the tanks around the general. By the same token though those defending or supporting a deal for Snowden in the wake of the Petraeus decision are few and far between, including most of those of a more principled or moderate political persuasion.

In the former category Nelson cites the estimable Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.), an individual who previously had no compunction effectively labeling Snowden a modern-day Benedict Arnold, virtually pleading that Petraeus had been "persecuted enough", and [that he] should not be prosecuted. Part of her plaintive plea went along the following lines: "He's retired. He's lost his job. How much does [the] government want?"

"How much does [the] government want?" indeed is a good question from any number of perspectives. It is also one I expect people like Sterling, Snowden, Julian Assange, and others are also asking themselves as they face highly uncertain futures at best, and possibly years or even decades in prison or in exile. And for what? Standing up for the defence and preservation of the spirit and letter - and one expects, the integrity - of the once fabled and now decidedly shop-soiled U.S. Constitution. Most folks one suspects would think this sounds like a good cause then. Yet others might say it is tantamount to closing the gate after the nag has bolted.

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".

The Petraeus/Wall Street connection doesn't end there, though. With no known experience in, or knowledge of, the financial industry and despite the ignominious departure from his former lofty heights, Petraeus was 'rewarded' with a partnership at KKR, a private equity firm. As McGovern observes rather matter-of-factly,

".... his hand-slap guilty plea to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets should not interfere with his continued service at the firm."

It seems that Petraeus' unemployed status brought about by his indiscretion was shortlived, as was the commensurate 'suffering' he purportedly endured. One further imagines that he is now in good company on "The Street", where the ultra exclusive, strictly "Members Only" Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Club has its headquarters.

In the American justice system, it appears now the power elites -- whether judicial, political, legislative, bureaucratic, corporate - don't even try and justify much less apologise for the increasingly lopsided manner in which justice is administered. It is what it is. Better get used to it.

This doubtless is the future -- the future of truth, justice and the American Way. This is also a contemporary reality that many right-minded Americans will have difficulty in swallowing to be sure. That it may always have been thus is another reality that for many other Americans may just be far too painful to contemplate, now and going forward.

And even by the time that a reasonable number do get to appreciate this "reality", for both them and the still 'walking dead', it almost certainly will be far too late.

Authors Bio:

Greg Maybury is a Perth (Australia) based freelance writer. His main areas of interest are American history and politics in general, with a special focus on economic, national security, military and geopolitical affairs, and both US domestic and foreign policy issues.