CIA Whistleblower, Missouri-born, In Prison

I hadn't heard this story but one CIA whistleblower, Jeffrey Sterling, "...an American lawyer and former CIA employee who was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for revealing details about Operation Merlin to journalist James Risen."  

Mr. Risen you may remember:

,,,is the author of the book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (January 2006). The book conducted important investigations into Central Intelligence Agency activities. It states that the CIA carried out an operation in 2000 (Operation Merlin) intended to delay Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program by feeding it flawed blueprints for key missing components—which backfired and may actually have aided Iran, as the flaw was likely detected and corrected by a former Soviet nuclear scientist the operation used to make the delivery. In early 2003, the New York Times refrained from publication of the story after an intervention by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice with the NYT Executive Editor Howell Raines.

So Mr. Sterling "blew the whistle" on the CIA over their own illegal activities and now he's in jail. 

He's originally from our own Cape Girardeau. He also got his Juris Doctor degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.

Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was being investigated during the Bush administration. In 2010 he was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, one of the few people in US history whose alleged contact with a journalist was punished under espionage law.

In May 2015, Sterling was sentenced to 3½ years in prison.

So one more time, our government is found doing things illegal---against our own laws---as with Edward Snowden, it seems, someone blows the whistle, so to speak, and they end up in jail, no one else.

And check this out. According to the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Sterling:

Sterling was convicted of espionage charges on January 26, 2015. Sentencing was originally scheduled for April 24, but after learning of the sentence of no more than two years’ probation plus a fine given one day earlier to David Petraeus for the felony of providing classified information to an unauthorized person, Sterling's lawyers submitted a plea that Sterling "not receive a different form of justice" than Petraeus, asking for a similarly lenient sentence instead of the 19 to 24 years imprisonment sought by the federal prosecutors.

So the white General "provides classified information to an unauthorized person" and gets probation. 

The black guy in the CIA gets 3-1/2 years?

Really?

That's what passes for justice in America?

Link:  How Jeffrey Sterling Took on the CIA — and Lost Everything

It's Looks To Be A Busy, Even Great September

Just glimpsing into what this September is going to bring us, besides Autumn and cooler temperatures, which is always welcome, it seems there's not just a lot of things that are going to take place but a lot of good to great things. Some examples:

--The Iran Deal. Agree or disagree, like it, love it, hate it, whatever, we're very likely now going to get the negotiated Iran deal which we--everyone--need so badly. Sure, disagree if you wish but scientists, military advisers actually in the military and experienced in the region as well as hundreds of Rabbis all came to the same conclusion, that this is a good and smart move. It's good for Iran, good for the region, good for the US, heck, good for the world. (see links, below).

--On a lot lighter side, we get Stephen Colbert back. This has, all of a sudden, become Stephen Colbert's week and even month, what with his Late Night talk show beginning this Tuesday. I don't know anyone brighter or any funnier than Mr. Colbert nor full of more energy and what appears to be downright, welcomed intelligence.

--Also lighter on subject, football. The NFL. And normally I wouldn't mention this but this year, especially the first game of the year, is especially poignant since the New England Patriots and their quarterback/leader Tom Brady will be highlighted. Coming off that rather auspicious win, what with his/their/our "deflategate" seeming scandal and the belief on so many people's part that the game looked rather shady, at least, if not out and out stolen, it should be interesting. Then there was all the courtroom drama this Summer and not that long ago---weeks---when a judge threw out the case of the NFL and commissioner Tom Goodell against Mr. Brady and his Patriots. Heck, the commentary alone on that opening football night and game should be interesting. Fun, even.

--On a far more local, Kansas City note, there's always the Fall art shows--Westport Art Festival next weekend and the Plaza Art Fair--and the UnPlaza Art Fair, of course--the 3rd week.

And that's just a short list. Heaven knows it will be a busy month. Enjoy, y'all.

Links:  Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal

29 US Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal

340 rabbis urge Congress to support Iran nuclear deal

This is an astoundingly good Iran deal

Quote of the Day -- On the Iran Deal

These Are the Days, My Friends

It's actually a pretty incredible time to be alive.

Millions more Americans recently came much closer to having full equality here in their own nation.

Greece just got yet one more cash bailout from it's Eurozone members yesterday.

It was announced today, Tuesday, that a nuclear agreement between Iran and 6 other nations to keep them from getting nuclear weapons was reached, taking off economic sanctions.

And there's a flyby of our satellite near Pluto today.

Big times. These are incredible times, indeed.

We take things so for granted.

Huge, Breaking National and International News

This came today, this afternoon, over at Daily Kos:

Report: Iran Nuclear Deal REACHED - 

to be Announced Tomorrow

A likely sign that a deal has been reached, according to news reports, is that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just touched down in Vienna, and the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is expected to arrive later today.

If the two unnamed envoys' accounts are accurate, it has been a historic couple of weeks for the Obama Administration, and, I daresay, for the entire planet Earth. w00t!

It's also reassuring to know that Israeli PM Netanyahu and his Goposaur pals in Congress will be powerless to thwart any agreement.

If true and if a good, strong, verifiable deal to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, this is not just huge but great news for Iran, for the United States, for the entire Middle East and even, of course, the world. And yes, like it or not, it would be excellent, fantastic, even events for the Obama administration.

Now wait for every Republican in Congress want to shoot it down.

Republican Party Priorities

By now, most of the nation has, I think, heard about the 47 Republicans who got together and signed a letter to the Iranian hard liners, saying they--the Republicans--support them and not our own president when it comes to negotiating for peace and keeping Iran from building a nuclear reactor.

It was fairly disgusting.

Moving on from that, local news station KY3, in Springfield, covered a story yesterday that bears some additional notoriety:

MoDOT lacks funding needed to fix bridges in 'critical condition'

This is another story I think most of us are familiar with. I know CBS "60 Minutes" did a story on it, telling of the lack of maintenance and upkeep our nation's roads, bridges, streets and other essential infrastructure have gotten and how they need work and investment. From this story yesterday:

74 Southwest Missouri bridges are currently listed in "critical condition" according to MoDOT, but department officials say the state doesn't have the money to repair those bridges...

And that's just Southwest Missouri bridges, not the entire state. If it were the entire state, that would have been concern enough.

Right now there are 600 bridges in Missouri listed in poor or critical condition, and officials estimate in 2024 there will 1,500 bridges in those categories. Without repairs, MoDOT says many bridges will have to be given weight restrictions or even be shut down completely.

And the great things about a solution to the nation's infrastructure would be that it would give more Americans jobs--good jobs, and for years---and secondly, also importantly, it would give the economy a boost.

Those are some huge benefits.

But instead of doing the nation's business and writing, proposing, voting on and passing an infrastructure bill, what do the Republicans give their time and attention to?

A letter to our enemies, saying they support them. instead of supporting peace negotiations and yes, our president.

The nerve, the stupidity the selfishness is fairly stunning.

We've all known we need to get money to our Highway Fund, too, but it's also neglected. This Congress and our representatives just simply aren't giving their jobs and our country, our nation, the people, the attention it all deserves.

Once again, they've put their political party ahead of the nation and the nation's needs, ahead of the people.

How long are we going to tolerate this nonsense?

Great play by Iran right now---and terrific irony

How's this for irony? (Which I've said here before, I love so much.) If it's real and sincere, it's as ironic as it gets: 'It's a sin': Iran calls on treaty to ban nuclear weapons What's great about this is, first, that Iran would be saying there needs to be a ban on nuclear weapons, just as the US is insisting they're trying to build them. Oh, and that we want to go in, "blow them up real good" (with thanks to SCTV) and keep them from building nuclear weapons because, well, you know, they're trying to. Secondly, the reason this is so grea--and ironic--is that they're not only saying there should be a ban on nuclear weapons but that--this is great, wait for it--"it's a sin"! They're using religion to say it's bad, too. Sure, it's that Muslim religion the Christians villify and look down their noses on but hey, it's still religion. It's still saying it goes against--ulp--God. They couldn't have come up with a better idea right now nor a better way to call us out on this if they tried. You have to hand it to them for this move. It's a beauty, and on at least 2 levels. They're obviously trying to beat us at our own game. Make that games. Link: http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-iaea-sin-421/

3rd time: US Navy saves Iranians

True. Here it is: Iranian Fishermen Rescued By U.S. Navy, Again And these are the people that hate us. These are the people that want to go to war with us. And yes, I understand the flip side, too, just as I understand why the North Koreans are lined up against us the way they are. But if you're either starving--as so many North Koreans are and have been for years--or so desperately poor, as so many Iranians are, wouldn't it be nice if we could all see each other half way and just get along? And just cooperate? Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/us-navy-rescues-iranian-fishermen_n_1215097.html?1326949106&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Possilbe war with Iran, like the war with Iraq

Here's hoping they'll listen this time.

Sec. of Defense: Iran not developing nukes

From Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta himself: So if our own Secretary of Defense is certain Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, could we please not have any further talk of possible war with same said nation. Please? And while we're at it, would you get those 1,000 American soldiers--or CIA agents or whatever they are--out of Israel? Link: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/09/secretary-of-defense-leon-panetta-says-iran-is-not-developing-nuclear-weapons-video/

Brief primer on Iraq and Iran

If someone showed you these pictures singularly, would you think any of them from Iraq or Iran? We so love to demonize our "enemies" and not think of them as humans or their countries, for that matter, as habitable. We humans still have a long way to go, don't we?

Let's hope he's wrong about war with Iran (guest post)

May 29, 2010

The Coming Iran War

It's happening again.

The same forces -- with a few new additions and minus a few smart defectors -- who pushed the United States into a needless and deadly war with Iraq are now organizing for the next war.

This time the target is Iran, which, just like Iraq, is said to be on the verge of creating weapons of mass destruction.

Also, just like Iraq, its president is a supposed madman determined to destroy Israel.

In fact, in the case of Iraq, that president, Saddam Hussein, not only threatened to "incinerate half of Israel," he actually launched 39 SCUD missiles against Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

That war finished off Saddam as a power.

But that was not good enough for Vice President Dick Cheney and his war profiteering buddies. Ten years later, with Cheney in the vice presidency and 9/11 as the pretense, the Cheney crowd led America into a war to depose Saddam. The goal: to turn Iraq into an American protectorate in order to make tens of billions of dollars for themselves and their corporate allies. So far, 4,400 Americans, 318 allied forces, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died to advance that agenda.

But Cheney also enlisted a gang of war cheerleaders who had no interest in making money off the conflict. Those were the neocons who pushed for war out of the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel.

The Cheney gang consisted of people like Doug Feith, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Scooter Libby, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and their various allies in government and media. The Israel lobby is also a member of that gang -- although it operated with nothing like the vigor that it now dedicates to the anti-Iran effort. (The pressure exerted by the lobby is a big part of the reason so many Democrats supported a war they knew was wrong.)

Of course, Iraq did not have WMDs and the Bush administration almost surely knew it. (If Iraq had them, we would no more have attacked Iraq than we now attack North Korea. In fact, the evidence that a country does not have WMDs is our willingness to consider bombing it.)

But, no matter, the gang of war profiteers and neocon ideologues were hell bent on war anyway. The supposed WMDs were just a pretense.

This would all be for the history books (and the grieving widows, parents, grandparents, children, partners, sisters and brothers of the fallen Americans) if the same scenario was not being played out today.

Earlier in May, Turkey and Brazil -- after months of intense negotiations -- persuaded the Iranian regime to accept a deal that would have vastly reduced its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. The Turkish-Brazilian deal was almost identical to the one President Obama and our allies pushed the Iranians to accept back in October.

Only this time, it wasn't good enough. The Obama administration ignored the Turkish-Brazilian breakthrough, saying its goal was crippling sanctions and that it was close to achieving them. Of course, few believe sanctions will have any significant effect other than to punish ordinary Iranians, people who are suffering quite enough under a monstrous regime.

But the administration seems to have been sold a bill of goods that leaves the U.S. with only two choices: sanctions or war. The diplomatic option seems to be off the table, pushed off by pressure from various warhawks, neocons, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies in Congress. (Obama originally favored open-ended diplomacy with no deadline; Netanyahu somehow convinced him that a deadline on diplomacy made sense. It doesn't.)

Even some of the more progressive voices are falling for this false choice largely because the lobby -- although clearly struggling as J Street moves into clear ascendancy among young and middle-aged Jews -- still manages to intimidate.

The other day, an Op-Ed appeared in the Jewish newspaper, Forward, by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform Jewish movement in America and a progressive, that read like something out of 2002.

Yoffie's piece is a cris de couer, urging all Jews to support a hard line on Iran. "Now is the time," he writes, "to pressure our government to move more emphatically to counter the Iranian threat.

Yoffie's piece is significant on two counts. The first is that he does not push the ridiculous line that a nuclear Iran would happily commit suicide in order to destroy Israel. The rabbi clearly knows enough about international relations and human behavior to understand that there are limits to what nations will do to make a political point and that national suicide is not one of them.

No, his description of the threat to Israel is both more subtle and more honest.

He writes, "Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live."

There is truth in that. The thought of a nuclear Iran so close to Israel is upsetting. But then so was the Cold War. And so is the fact that North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Russia all have nuclear weapons -- not to mention all those missing nukes which could end up, God forbid, in the hands of terrorists. And such is life these days in New York City, Washington, London and -- especially -- Seoul, where, just under the surface, is the fear that a catastrophe could happen at any time.

It also should be noted that for most of the world, the idea that Israel has 200-plus nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is itself deeply troubling. In fact, much of the world believes that Israel is so vehement about Iranian nukes because it wants to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East, leaving it free to do what it wants, whenever it wants to. It enjoys its hegemony. That is what Yoffie is hinting at.

Nonetheless, I agree with him that the world, and not just Israel, would be better off if Iran never develops nuclear weapons.

But my idea of how to prevent a nuclear Iran is rather different than the rabbi's.

Here is Yoffie: "There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options -- whether economic sanctions or military action -- are impossible without American support."

Funny, Yoffie refers to "all" of the options when he only names two -- sanctions or war. It is as if he intended to include the one option that makes sense, diplomacy, and changed his mind at the last minute. The "all" is a remnant of a thought he would not permit himself, either because he honestly opposes diplomacy or because he doesn't want to cross AIPAC.

Yoffie's alternatives are no alternatives at all. Sanctions won't work (except to punish ordinary Iranians and enrich those who defy the sanctions) and "military action" will produce nothing except more dead -- including Americans -- and, quite possibly, a regional war. War would also eliminate any chance that Israel will ever have peace with the Muslim world and would destroy America's standing in a critical region.

What is Yoffie thinking when he rules out diplomacy but rules in a third Middle East war? Is the preemptive slaughter of innocents really a legitimate option for civilized people in 2010? Well, it isn't for me or for the Reform Jews who look to Yoffie for leadership. (Jews are mostly doves and Reform Jews, to their credit, are the most dovish of all.)

It is war, not diplomacy, that belongs off the table. I'm sure Rabbi Yoffie knows that. That is what he should have written.


MJ Rosenberg.Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters