On whistleblowers and government threats of investigation

No healthy democracy can endure when the most consequential acts of those in power remain secret and unaccountable

By Glenn Greenwald

We followed Wednesday’s story about the NSA’s bulk telephone record-gathering with one yesterday about the agency’s direct access to the servers of the world’s largest internet companies. I don’t have time at the moment to address all of the fallout because – to borrow someone else’s phrase – I’m Looking Forward to future revelations that are coming (and coming shortly), not Looking Backward to ones that have already come.

But I do want to make two points. One is about whistleblowers, and the other is about threats of investigations emanating from Washington:

1) Ever since the Nixon administration broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst’s office, the tactic of the US government has been to attack and demonize whistleblowers as a means of distracting attention from their own exposed wrongdoing and destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message. That attempt will undoubtedly be made here.

I’ll say more about all that shortly, but for now: as these whistleblowing acts becoming increasingly demonized (“reprehensible”, declared Director of National Intelligence James Clapper yesterday), please just spend a moment considering the options available to someone with access to numerous Top Secret documents.

They could easily enrich themselves by selling those documents for huge sums of money to foreign intelligence services. They could seek to harm the US government by acting at the direction of a foreign adversary and covertly pass those secrets to them. They could gratuitously expose the identity of covert agents.

None of the whistleblowers persecuted by the Obama administration as part of its unprecedented attack on whistleblowers has done any of that: not one of them. Nor have those who are responsible for these current disclosures.

They did not act with any self-interest in mind. The opposite is true: …

Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America

Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an ‘executive coup’ against the US constitution

By Daniel Ellsberg

In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden’s release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an “executive coup” against the US constitution.

Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.

The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: “It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp.”

For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know. ..

Imprisoned CIA Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou Pens “Letter from Loretto”

By Brian Sonestein

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the US government’s use of torture under the Bush administration, is currently serving a 30 month sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania.

Below is a letter he recently sent his attorney Jesselyn Radack, who shared it (with John’s permission) with Firedoglake based on a pre-existing arrangement. The letter details his life in prison, including an incident in which prison officials attempted setup a confrontation between Kiriakou and a Muslim prisoner, telling Kiriakou he was the uncle of the Times Square bomber, when in reality the imam was in prison for refusing to testify in the Lackawanna Six case. Prison officials also lied to the Muslim prisoner, telling him that Kiriakou had called Washington after they met and had been ordered to kill him.

This letter is the first part in a series inspired by dinner table discussions between Jane Hamsher, Jesselyn Radack and John Kiriakou (and others) before he went to prison. John wanted to have his letters published so that he could still communicate and share his story with the outside world.

“Letter From Loretto”

Greetings from the Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto, Pennsylvania. I arrived here on February 28, 2013 to serve a 30 month sentence for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. At least that’s what the government wants people to believe. In truth, this is my punishment for blowing the whistle on the CIA’s illegal torture program and for telling the public that torture was official US government policy. But that’s a different story. The purpose of this letter is to tell you about prison life.

At my formal sentencing hearing in January, the judge, the prosecutors, and my attorneys all agreed that I would serve my sentence in Loretto’s Federal Work Camp. When I arrived, however, much to my surprise, the Corrections Officer (CO, or “hack”) who processed me said that the Justice Department Bureau of Prisons had deemed me a “threat to the public safety” and so I would do serve the entire sentence in the actual prison, rather than the camp.

Processing took about an hour and included fingerprinting, a mug shot (my third after FBI and the Marshals), my fourth DNA sample, and a quite comprehensive strip search. …

]]> http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2013/06/08/whistleblowers-letter-from-prison/feed/ 0 http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2013/06/06/nazi-like-manning-trial/ http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2013/06/06/nazi-like-manning-trial/#comments Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:42:41 +0000 admin http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/?p=32974

Memory from Nazi Germany and Images of the Trial of Bradley Manning

By Kevin Anthony Stod, Historian & Human Rights Activist

 I am   listening to news right now about the military trial of Bradley Manning, which is taking place in my homeland, the USA.  Bradley Manning   is on trial for “aiding the enemy”–an incredibly broad statute that can be abused–and has been misused historically by horrible regimes to put people–including soldiers–in prison.

At times the charge of aiding an enemy has led to execution of the person who has been charged with “aiding the enemy”.  Theoretically, Bradley Manning can receive the death penalty from the military court he is now in. In many situations, like in the Bradley Manning case, the charge of “aiding the enemy” has actually been used by authorities to simply to make others shut-up, to make soldiers and citizens stop complaining, and stop being critical of the government.

Let me give you a real example of the way the Nazi regime and military brass abused the charge of “aiding the enemy”.  This true tale was shared to me by an aging farmer whom I met in northern Germany on his own farm about three decades ago.

Vignette of Nazi Era Military Courtroom

The name of the farmer’s last name whom I visited in Germany some decades ago was Thoelking. His daughter, Monica Thoelking, had gone to my alma mater, BethelCollege  to study English a few years earlier.  A few years later, I myself studied in Germany starting.  In late 1986, I visited the Thoelking family farm. …

‘Ridiculous Manning trial proves demand for whistleblowers’

By RT TV

Barack Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors, with Bradley Manning’s case part of the crackdown, but people will still break the rules to reveal the truth to the public, Kristinn Hrafnsson, Wikileaks spokesman, told RT.

The trial of the US army private, Bradley Manning, who handed classified military data to Wikileaks, is now underway in Maryland.

The whistleblower faces a list of charges – among them aiding the enemy, which could land him in prison for the rest of his life.

Kristinn Hrafnsson believes that Manning has already suffered enough and should be set free as no lives have been harmed due to the data he disclosed.

RT: Manning is on trial for providing information to your organization. You’re the ones who made it public – do you feel responsible for his predicament?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: We are a journalistic organization, who of course provide a platform for whistleblowers and sources to submit information to us anonymously. And the best way to secure the people – the whistleblowers – is by not knowing their identity. So, I can say that I first heard the name ‘Bradley Manning’ when I read in the papers that he has been arrested in May 2010. So, it’s worth emphasizing that nothing that WikiLeaks did led to his arrest and this trail.

RT: What is your organization doing to help him avoid life imprisonment for collaborating with you?

KH: We do support him in any way possible through the millions of people that have subscribed to our Twitter and our Facebook accounts.  And we try to provide a mass of support to Bradley Manning because he, certainly, needs it and will need it in the future. This trial is very much a trial of the freedom of the press. And it’s worth noting that there are extremely serious steps taken by the US administration to pursue these extremely serious charges against young Bradley Manning for aiding the enemy, for basically treason, which carries the death penalty. It’s an extremely serious thing that should be considered by the general public and journalists as a serious threat.

RT: It turns out that by publishing Manning’s documents WikiLeaks aided the enemy as well. Should you also be prosecuted?

KH: It’s totally absurd. We work with more than 100 media organizations all around the world, including the New York Times, who published this information. So, did the New York Times aid the enemy? Would’ve it have made a difference if  those soldiers who killed Osama bin Laden, found a copy of the New York Times in his house or online material? This is journalism.

RT: Many blame Manning for spilling state secrets without regard to those he might endanger. He deserves to be punished doesn’t he?

KH: Absolutely not. He should be set free. He ‘s suffered enough after three years in prison and one year almost under torturous conditions. Enough is enough. The information that was revealed by WikiLeaks was information on war crimes and corruption and information that should be in the public domain.

Bradley Manning Is Guilty of “Aiding the Enemy” — If the Enemy Is Democracy

By Norman Solomon (about the author)

 Of all the charges against Bradley Manning, the most pernicious — and revealing — is “aiding the enemy.”

A blogger at The New Yorker, Amy Davidson, raised a pair of big questions that now loom over the courtroom at Fort Meade and over the entire country:

“Would it aid the enemy, for example, to expose war crimes committed by American forces or lies told by the American government?”

“In that case, who is aiding the enemy — the whistleblower or the perpetrators themselves?”

When the deceptive operation of the warfare state can’t stand the light of day, truth-tellers are a constant hazard. And culpability must stay turned on its head.

That’s why accountability was upside-down when the U.S. Army prosecutor laid out the government’s case against Bradley Manning in an opening statement: “This is a case about a soldier who systematically harvested hundreds of thousands of classified documents and dumped them onto the Internet, into the hands of the enemy — material he knew, based on his training, would put the lives of fellow soldiers at risk.”

If so, those fellow soldiers have all been notably lucky; the Pentagon has admitted that none died as a result of Manning’s leaks in 2010. But many of his fellow soldiers lost their limbs or their lives in U.S. warfare made possible by the kind of lies that the U.S. government is now prosecuting Bradley Manning for exposing.

Free Bradley Manning

By robert braunstein (about the author)

When I was young you didn’t have to clean up after your tyrannosaurus; cigarettes were okay; the bear was being trained to go in the woods, and human rights were worth fighting for.

When I was young they couldn’t do this to Bradley Manning.

There would be massive demonstrations. Bill Kunstler would volunteer to defend him. There would be “Free Bradley Manning

Buttons” everywhere.

What happened to America? Are we that willing to give up everything because of 9/11?

It is openly proposed that we shoot Bradley Manning! We don’t need no trial for traitors. What is it that Bradley Manning has been convicted of? Do we have the right to torture American citizens without as much as a trial, or is he that lucky because he is a Marine?

Did Bradley Manning give away Top Secrets? Did Bradley Manning give away troop locations like Geraldo Rivera?

Is the Patriot Law being applied? Even Charles Manson got a trial.

Mr. Maddoff got a trial. And by the way, how come no one went to jail when the banks packaged all the bad loans? Isn’t stealing still a crime?

WikiLeaks Lawyer Sees Spurious “Enemy” Claims & Bid to Scare Whistleblowers

The military trial of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, Maryland, began Monday with the defense and prosecution presenting starkly contrasting accounts. Manning is accused of giving a cache of diplomatic cables and government documents to WikiLeaks in the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history. The military prosecutor, Captain Joe Morrow, accused Manning of “dumping” hundreds of thousands of documents “into the lap of the enemy,” and painted a picture of close ties between Manning and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Manning’s defense lawyer, David Coombs, said Manning wanted to reveal the human cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “He believed [the leaked] information showed how we value human life,” Coombs said. “He was troubled by that. He believed that if the American public saw it, they too would be troubled.” We’re joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a lawyer to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Ratner attended the opening session of Manning’s trial.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: The military trial of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning is underway. Manning is accused of providing more than 700,000 secret U.S. government documents and cables to WikiLeaks, the largest disclosure of state secrets in U.S. history. Manning faces more than 20 charges, including violating the Espionage Act and aiding the enemy. He has already pled guilty to 10 lesser charges of misusing classified material.

The trial began Monday with the defense and prosecution presenting starkly contrasting accounts. Manning’s defense lawyer, David Coombs, said Manning wanted to reveal the human costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Coombs said, quote, “[Bradley Manning] believed this information showed how we value human life. He was troubled by that. He believed that if the American public saw it, they too would be troubled.”

AMY GOODMAN: Army prosecutor Captain Joe Morrow accused Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy, including Osama Bin Laden, who allegedly accessed some of the classified State Department cables after they were published by the website WikiLeaks. Morrow said, quote, “This is a case about a soldier who systematically harvested hundreds of thousands of classified documents and dumped them onto the Internet, into the hands of the enemy—material he knew, based on his training, would put the lives of fellow soldiers at risk,” he said.

Coombs responded by arguing that Manning was selective, saying, quote, “He had access to literally hundreds of millions of documents as an all-source analyst, and these were the documents that he released. And he released these documents because he was hoping to make the world a better place,” he said.

The trial is expected to run to the end of August. Supporters of Bradley Manning gathered outside Fort Meade as the trial opened.

BROOKS BALLENGER: Bradley Manning did a very courageous thing. He told the American people and the world about what was going on in Afghanistan and about misinformation and distortions that were used to convince people that we should be in this war and that it was a just war and that we were helping the Afghan people, and a bunch of other misdeeds that the U.S. was doing. And I think that was a service to the country.

Seven Myths About Bradley Manning

Chase Madar on June 3, 2013 – 11:43 AM ET

Today begins the court-martial of Private First Class Bradley Manning, Wikileaks’ source inside the US military. Because Manning was arrested over three years ago, the global news media have already written much about the young soldier from Crescent, Oklahoma. And though news accounts have frequently gotten the facts right (he’s 25, was deployed to FOB Hammer in the Mada’in Qada desert of Iraq, is 5 foot 2), most reports have written about the big issues that collide in this case without the slightest sense of context and perspective, leading to all kinds of basic errors and distortions—for instance that the leaks were “top secret”; that Wikileaks is on a “utopian” quest for “total transparency,” that Manning did what he did not for political but for psychological (or sexual!) reasons. As Pfc. Manning’s court-martial proceeds over the next three to four months in Ft. Meade, you can bet that media reports will continue to put across the same funhouse distortions. So to kick off my blog coverage of the court-martial for The Nation, here’s a quick debunking trip through the thickets of folklore that have sprung up around this case.

First, it is routinely asserted or implied that Manning declassified the field reports and diplomatic cables because he is a nut job, or because he is gay, or because he is a gay nut job. In fact, Manning’s motive was expressly political: “I want people to see the truth…regardless of who they are…because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” People can disagree about the consequences of Manning’s leak, but his motive for declassifying the documents is plainly stated, and it has nothing to do with his mental health or sexuality. As former infantry soldier Ethan McCord (seen through the helicopter gunsight camera in the leaked “Collateral Murder” video rescuing wounded children from a shot-up van) wrote, to fixate on Manning’s sexuality “erases Manning’s political agency.”

Another common smear, Myth #2, is that Bradley Manning and Wikileaks are “utopian,” probably the worst curse word in educated English, carrying as it does connotations of extremism and intolerance wrapped in naïveté, or “idealists,” almost as bad. But is there anything “utopian” about declassifying less than 1 percent of what Washington classifies in a given year (92 million documents at last count)?

Police Officer Shot Man Dead for Peeing, Mother Claims in Court

May 28, 2013  |

SALT LAKE CITY (CN) – A Utah sheriff’s deputy saw a man peeing by the side of a road, then chased him at low speed and shot him to death, the man’s mother claims in court.

Texas Police Tase Overweight Asthmatic to Death in Drug Raid That Uncovers No Drugs

Another casualty of the drug war.

May 28, 2013  |

On May 16th, Forth Worth police entered the home of Jarmaine Darden, 34, in search of cocaine. The raid, which does not appear to have uncovered any cocaine,  ended with the 34-year-old father dead after police tased him multiple times.

Cops Taser Then Shoot Man to Death After Family Calls 911 for Help for His Depression

Killing not a cure for depression, family says.

May 29, 2013  |

A California sheriff’s deputy needlessly Tasered and then shot a man to death after his father called 911 seeking help for his son’s depression, the family claims in court.

Detroit Cop Who Shot/Killed Seven-Year-Old in Flash-Bang Raid Blames His Superiors

He has a point.

May 29, 2013  |

In 2010, Detroit police in search of a murder suspect sent a SWAT team to Lillibridge Street just after midnight. The steel door to the building, as well as the lower unit’s door, were both unlocked. Nonetheless, officers busted through the unlocked unit door and tossed a flash-bang grenade through the window. The grenade landed so close to seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones, who was asleep on the couch, that it burned her blanket. Within seconds, a bullet from Detroit Officer Joseph Weekly’s gun pierced her head, killing her her. The murder suspect police were actually looking for lived in the upper unit, above where Aiyana slept. Now, three years later, Officer Weekly’s trial is starting up with jury selection on Wednesday. But questions about the events that led to Aiyana’s death remain.

By Kim Barker and Justin Elliott ProPublica

In the furious fallout from the revelation that the IRS flagged applications from conservative nonprofits for extra review because of their political activity, some points about the big picture – and big donors — have fallen through the cracks.

Consider this our Top 6 list of need-to-know facts on social welfare nonprofits, also known as dark money groups because they don’t have to disclose their donors. The groups poured more than $256 million into the 2012 federal elections.

1. Social welfare nonprofits are supposed to have social welfare, and not politics, as their “primary” purpose.

A century ago, Congress created a tax exemption for social welfare nonprofits. The statute defining the groups says they are supposed to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” But in 1959, the regulators interpreted the “exclusively” part of the statute to mean groups had to be “primarily” engaged in enhancing social welfare. This later opened the door to political spending.

So what does “primarily” mean?  It’s not clear. The IRS has said it uses a “facts and circumstances” test to say whether a group mostly works to benefit the community or not. In short: If a group walks and talks like a social welfare nonprofit, then it’s a social welfare nonprofit.

This deliberate vagueness has led some groups to say that “primarily” simply means they must spend 51 percent of their money on a social welfare idea — say, on something as vague as “education,” which could also include issue ads criticizing certain politicians. And then, the reasoning goes, a group can spend as much as 49 percent of its expenditures on ads directly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for office.

Nowhere in tax regulations or rulings does it mention 49 percent, though. Some nonprofit lawyers have argued that the IRS should set hard limits for social welfare nonprofits — setting out, for instance, that they cannot spend more than 20 percent of their money on election ads or even limiting spending to a fixed amount, like no more than $250,000.

So far, the IRS has avoided clarifying any limits.

2. Donors to social welfare nonprofits are anonymous for a reason.

Unlike donors who give directly to politicians or even to super PACs, donors who give to social welfare nonprofits can stay secret. In large part, this is because of an attempt by Alabama to force the NAACP, then a social welfare nonprofit, to disclose its donors in the 1950s. In 1958, the Supreme Court sided with the NAACP, saying that public identification of its members made them at risk of reprisal and threats.

The ACLU, which is itself a social welfare nonprofit, has long made similar arguments. So has Karl Rove, the GOP strategist and brains behind Crossroads GPS, which has spent more money on elections than any other social welfare nonprofit. In early April 2012, Rove invoked the NAACP in defending his organization against attempts to reveal donors.

The Federal Election Commission could in theory push for some disclosure from social welfare nonprofits — for their election ads, at least. But the FEC has been paralyzed by a 3-3 partisan split, and its interpretations of older court decisions have given nonprofits wiggle room to avoid saying who donated money, as long as a donation wasn’t specifically made for a political ad.

The Huffington Post  |  By Chris Gentilviso

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday’s official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes’ comment, according to CBS News: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

The White House email: “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

The GOP version of Nuland’s comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.”

The White House email: “The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans’ interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.

17 People Shot, including 10-year-old Girl, During New Orleans Mother’s Day Parade

Gunmen opened fire as dozens of people marched in a Mother’s Day second-line parade in New Orleans on Sunday, wounding at least 12 people, police said.

Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas told reporters that a 10-year-old girl grazed by a bullet was among those wounded in the shooting around 2 p.m. She was in good condition. He said three or four people were in surgery but their conditions weren’t known. No deaths were reported.

Serpas said that the procession had been accompanied by officers, who saw two or three suspects run from the scene in the city’s 7th Ward.

The Times-Picayune reports there were about 200 people at the event when gunfire erupted.

Nobody has been arrested. It’s unclear what sparked the gunfire.

Second-line parades are loose processions in which people dance down the street, often following behind a brass band. They can be impromptu or planned and are sometimes described as moving block parties.

Without a Peep from Fox News

By Bob Cesca · May 08,2013 Foreign Policy

The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.

So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher — especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan …

Read More

Republican Hypocrisy on Benghazi

Exclusive: Official Washington is obsessing over the Benghazi “scandal,” proof that the Republicans and their right-wing media can make the smallest things big and the biggest things small. It is a disparity that has distorted how Americans understand their recent history, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry (about the author)

You have to hand it to the Republicans and their right-wing media: they are persistent in pushing their conspiracy theories no matter how improbable or insignificant, just as they are relentless in covering up GOP wrongdoing even when that behavior strikes at the heart of democratic institutions or costs countless lives.

So, we have the contrast between the nine high-profile hearings about last September’s Benghazi attack and Republican determination to cover up Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, Contra-cocaine trafficking, and the two October Surprise cases (sabotaging President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks in 1968 and subverting President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980).

In those cases and others, Republicans not only suppressed evidence but mounted counteroffensives against brave whistleblowers, diligent government investigators and conscientious journalists. The GOP and its right-wing media took pleasure in punishing anyone who dug up troublesome truths, even a conservative Republican such as Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh.

The Republicans also showed little or no interest in delving into the facts surrounding terrorist incidents on George W. Bush’s watch, including his failure to protect the nation from the 9/11 attacks, or examining his war crimes, such as his deceptive case for invading Iraq and his approval of torture against “war on terror” detainees.

Granted, part of the blame for those short-circuited investigations must fall on the Democrats and the mainstream news media for lacking the courage and integrity to pursue investigations in the face of Republican obstructionism.

With only a few exceptions, Democrats have shied away from confrontations with Republicans, sometimes fretting that a full accounting might not be “good for the country.” Mainstream news executives, too, have shown a lack of stomach for going toe to toe with angry Republicans and their ferocious propagandists.

Thus, there has been a systematic crumbling of investigative will when the subject of a scandal is a Republican …

WATCH: Maddow’s Epic Takedown of Republican Conspiracy Theories

The Benghazi Story: The Great American Ripoff.

By Robert De Filippis (about the author)

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! I’m tired of feeling ripped off because I can’t find out what really happened, why it’s so important, and what does it mean?

I can’t find out, not because there isn’t enough information. But because of two other important variables. Variable one: It has been politicized and the Republican’s are using it to condemn both President Obama and cast suspicions on Hillary Clinton in anticipation of her presidential run in 2016. And it’s for these reasons that the administration is   redacting documents and politically posturing as defensive response. The result?   We don’t really know what happened.

Variable two: I’ll call this one the “crying wolf” syndrome. When a party, in this case the Republicans, uses every possible device to condemn, disrupt and deny its opponents, it’s difficult to take anything they say seriously, even if in some cases their positions are based on facts.

Put these two variables together and we’re being ripped off by both parties. I yearn for a time when someone on either side of the aisle actually offers the unvarnished, non-politicized truth. (I didn’t say “the” time. I said “a” time. I doubt there every has been such a time in America politics.)

In an article titled, 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News, by Bob Cesca – May 08,2013, on The Daily Banter, Mr. Cesca makes the point that 13 attacks on US consulates and compounds, including fatalities, occurred during the Bush administration and the Republicans never murmured a word. Nor did Fox news, but that’s no surprise coming from a news source proven by multiple surveys to be responsible for the least informed audience in America.