In recent years, we have seen whistle-blowers being arrested for disclosing classified information to the press. We have also seen cases of people “outing” an active CIA Operative, “outing” the name of the leader of the Bin Laden attack, and allowing classified emails to be viewed by a “close friend”. What is the difference in all of the cases? The whistle-blowers were all arrested. The others were not!
When Dick Cheney was Vice President, he arranged to have the name of an active CIA Operative “outed” in a political attack on her husband. Since then, the Director of the CIA Leon Penatta outed the name of the SEAL team leader who led the Bin Laden attack at an awards ceremony attended by the director of the film “Zero Dark Thirty”.
Director of the CIA David Petraeus gave his lover and biographer, Paula Broadwell, access to his CIA email account and other highly classified information, some of which was found on her computer. Director of the CIA John Brennan is widely believed to have outed a Saudi double agent inside the Yemen branch of al-Qaeda by leaking that the CIA foiled a plot to build a new, more advanced underwear bomb to blow up a U.S. airliner.
Then there is the case of Snowden. Snowden wasn’t arrested yet, but he was forced into exile. When he went to Russia, his passport was revoked which meant he couldn’t leave Russia for Latin America. If he comes back to the U.S. you can be sure he will be arrested.
All of these people should have been arrested under the Espionage Act. I am not defending the Espionage Act since I believe it is a bad law. The Espionage Act is a one-sided, heavy-handed law that is supposed to protect us from spies. To be frank, it is a cold war remnant that needs to be modified. But, as long as it remains in effect, it must be used against anyone who unlawfully discloses classified information.
Which brings us to Gen. David Petraeus. On Friday, it was leaked that the Justice Department and the FBI concluded their investigation into Gen. Petraeus, and are recommending he be prosecuted for leaking classified information. It is my guess that Mr. Holder will not go forth with a prosecution of Gen. Petraeus. On the Sunday talk shows, he cast serious doubts about the possibility of imminent prosecution.
Even members of Congress are rallying behind the General. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, “We can’t afford to have his voice silenced or curtailed by the shadow of a long-running, unresolved investigation marked by leaks from anonymous sources.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said, “This man has suffered enough. . . He made a mistake. He lost his job because of it. I mean, how much do you want to punish somebody?”
Even if we were to consider their pleas, why aren’t they saying the same thing about former NSA senior executive Thomas A. Drake. Drake tried to reveal wasteful, abusive and unlawful surveillance programs without revealing any classified material. Yet he was investigated for over four years, had his security clearance suspended and lost his job, and endured baseless, anonymous smears leaked by the government.
Turns out Mr. Drake was exonerated. After it was all over, neither Congress nor the Department of Justice even apologized to him for his anguish forced on him by this witch-hunt. Nor, did anyone try to get his security clearance back so he could go back to working in his chosen profession.
It is this double-standard that is really at stake in the Petraeus case. Is the Attorney General going to look the other way again because it involves someone other than a low-level person? Are we going to make another sham of the Espionage Law simply because Gen. Petraeus “has suffered enough already?”
A lot of people are arguing that should be the case. Unlike Mr. Drake who lost his job, Gen. Petraeus is making millions. He has retained his security clearance. He has been teaching at Harvard. He is making speeches at lucrative fees. He has been advising the White House on the Islamic State. He is a partner in KKR, which is one of the biggest private-equity firms. In other words, he is doing better than he was as the CIA Director. I personally don’t see the “punishment” in his case so far.
You also have to take into consideration what he said when John Brennan pleaded guilty to confirming the identity of a CIA officer involved in renditions. The General made a very self-righteous and, as it turn out, hypocritical statement. He said: “Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that protect our fellow officers and enable American intelligence agencies to operate with the requisite degree of secrecy.”
I lived under the Espionage Act for a long time, too. In this sense, I do agree with Gen. Petraeus. “Oaths do matter.” However, unlike the General, I believe “oaths do matter” for everyone regardless of your rank. That is why I believe it is important to formally charge and prosecute the General.
Yes, the Espionage Law needs to be reformed. But, until it is, everyone must adhere to the oaths they take. Otherwise, we are telling people in authority that they are above the law. So General, I repeat your own words: “oaths do matter.” As I am sure you told your own troops many times, man-up and suffer the consequences of your actions!
