The trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, set to begin in mid-January, is shaping up as a major battle in the U.S. government\u2019s siege against whistleblowing. With its use of the Espionage Act to intimidate and prosecute people for leaks in \u201cnational security\u201d realms, the Obama administration is determined to keep hiding important facts that the public has a vital right to know.<\/p>\n
After fleeting coverage of Sterling\u2019s indictment four years ago, news media have done little to illuminate his case \u2013 while occasionally reporting on the refusal of New York Times<\/em> reporter James Risen to testify about whether Sterling was a source for his 2006 book State of War<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n Risen\u2019s unwavering stand for the confidentiality of sources is admirable. At the same time, Sterling \u2013 who faces 10 felony counts that include seven under the Espionage Act \u2013 is no less deserving of support.<\/p>\n Revelations from brave whistleblowers are essential for the informed consent of the governed. With its hostilities, President Barack Obama\u2019s Justice Department is waging legalistic war on our democratic rights to know substantially more about government actions than official stories. That\u2019s why the imminent courtroom clash in the case of \u201cUnited States of America v. Jeffrey Alexander Sterling\u201d is so important.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sterling is accused of telling Risen about a CIA operation that had provided flawed nuclear weapon blueprints to Iran in 2000. The charges are unproven. But no one disputes that Sterling told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers about the CIA action, dubbed Operation Merlin, which Risen\u2019s book later exposed and brought to light as dumb and dangerous. While ostensibly aiming to prevent nuclear proliferation, the CIA risked advancing it.<\/p>\n When he informed staff of the Senate oversight committee about Operation Merlin, Sterling was going through channels to be a whistleblower. Presumably he knew that doing so would anger the CIA hierarchy. A dozen years later, as the government gears up for a courtroom showdown, it\u2019s payback time in the security-state corral.<\/p>\n The relentless prosecution of Sterling targets potential whistleblowers with a key implicit message: Do not reveal any \u201cnational security\u201d secrets that make the U.S. government look seriously incompetent, vicious, mendacious or dangerous. Don\u2019t even think about it.<\/em><\/p>\n With so much at stake, the new petition \u201cBlowing the Whistle on Government Recklessness Is a Public Service, Not a Crime\u201d<\/a> has gained more than 30,000 signers in recent weeks, urging the government to drop all charges against Sterling. The initial sponsors include ExposeFacts<\/a>, the Freedom of the Press Foundation<\/a>, the Government Accountability Project<\/a>, The Nation<\/a><\/em>, The Progressive<\/a>, <\/em>Center for Media and Democracy<\/a>, Reporters Without Borders<\/a>, and RootsAction.org<\/a>. (A disclaimer: I work for ExposeFacts and RootsAction.)<\/p>\n Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has concisely summarized the context of the government\u2019s efforts in the Sterling prosecution. \u201cSterling\u2019s ordeal comes from a strategy to frighten potential whistleblowers, whether he was the source of this leak or not,\u201d Ellsberg said in an interview for an article<\/a> that journalist Marcy Wheeler and I wrote for The Nation.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThe aim is to punish troublemakers with harassment, threats, indictments, years in court and likely prison \u2013 even if they\u2019ve only gone through official channels to register accusations about their superiors and agency. That is, by the way, a practical warning to would-be whistleblowers who would prefer to \u2018follow the rules.\u2019 But in any case, whoever were the actual sources to the press of information about criminal violations of the Fourth Amendment, in the NSA case, or of reckless incompetence, in the CIA case, they did a great public service.\u201d<\/p>\n Such a great public service deserves our praise and active support.<\/p>\n