Now this is tricky, because these groups helped him navigate the treacherous waters of the mainstream media, with mixed results, during his prosecution and through his send-off to prison. So for John Kiriakou to say the following about groups like the Project on Government Oversight (and implicitly the Government Accountability Project), when they expect loyalty in return (Washington being a transactional town and all), is nothing short of astounding:

This comes just a few days after this author sent Mr. Kiriakou a letter* urging him to consider who should speak on his behalf. Where it gets complicated is that GAP currently manages his legal defense fund, which is helping to support his family. That should continue unabated, regardless what insights Mr. Kiriakou shares with the world that prove uncomfortable for GAP and its cohorts.

*This author does not take any credit for this development. From his perspective, it is just a welcome coincidence.

As I see it, certain elements within the whistleblower community are a detriment to whistleblowers acting out of conscience. Mr. Kiriakou will have to make a choice about what kind of person he wants to be after repaying his debt to society. At the very least, such a choice should be an informed one.

I imagine that GAP will now be working double-time to smear this particular critic and do damage control.

Btw, the letter contained a prinout of this diary: http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2013/03/01/with-head-held-high-john-kiriakou-entered-prison-yesterday/

1. He raised issues that need airing.

2. It’s about the principle, not the person.

3. Perfectionism-based criticism (e.g. that he only talked about Americans, or drone strikes on U.S. soil) is a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit the whole venture. He’s not arguing in court of law, but in the court of public opinion, and this is his opening argument. He can stick to a few talking points for now and draw the line here, to capture the public’s attention and not overwhelm. Besides, others who would go further can build off what he did.

4. He can run for President, and this can even be his opening shot. I doubt he’ll win, but many politicians have run for president to change the direction of their parties. And let’s face it: the GOP needs it.

5. He’s a senator, and so of course he’ll grandstand. What filibuster isn’t about grandstanding, in part? One person who gets to bring the entire political process to a grind just so he can be heard? But in America, we eat that shit up. Focus on the message, folks, not the theatrics.

6. I don’t even mind that some have opportunistically rose up to join him when they supported the opposite policies under the last administration. On the one hand, it’s never too late to find one’s conscience. On the other hand, now it’s too late for them to credibly turn back.

7. Nobody disagrees with his main point: that the U.S. has no authority to use drone strikes on Americans, on U.S. soil, who are not engaged in combat. The only disagreements are why this was worth filibustering. I think it was, because it set the precedent, which has been eroded over the last dozen years, that the president’s war powers have limits. The details are almost beside the point. And indeed, most of the (ad hominem) arguments by the war mongers are based on breathless indignation at the mere notion that the president’s powers have limits, and how dare this wet-behind-the-ears, Atlas Shrugged-toting man-child come in here and show us up? But their reaction shows he drew blood.

For what it’s worth, I applaud his efforts.

Position Available

Wanted: A tough, principled, and tenacious senator who is willing to play a much-needed prosecutorial role on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The incumbent is expected to become the conscience of the civil service system and the moral compass of the federal bureaucracy.

Qualifications

Must be:

• Fiercely independent;
• An expert in civil service laws;
• Willing to confront wrongdoing, corruption, cronyism, and coverups in government, wherever they may occur;
• Willing to reach out beyond the traditional Washington accountability bubble and listen to the concerns of ordinary citizens and federal employees;
• Excited about holding agencies’ and watchdogs’ feet to the fire; and
• Willing to resign or blow the whistle loudly before forsaking whistleblowers and their civil rights for business as usual in Washington.

Interested candidates may contact info@mspbwatch.net for more information.

Dissenters’ Digest takes a look at last month’s top stories covering whistleblowers, watchdogs, and government accountability.

Clear Conscience: U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning pled guilty to 10 of 22 charges against him, offering a 35-page testimonial explaining why he released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other evidence of government misconduct to Wikileaks in January 2010.

Guilty of Purging Evidence: Former Special Counsel Scott Bloch pled guilty to erasing 3 government computers that may have contained whistleblower disclosures, retaliation complaints, and other sensitive memos. The charge may involve up to six months in jail.

30 Months in Prison: Ex-CIA spy John Kiriakou reported to prison to begin a 30-month sentence for disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Kiriakou came to prominence in 2007 for publicly reporting about the CIA’s torture program.

Below the Fold:

• The Justice Department joined Floyd Landis’ whistleblower lawsuit against Lance Armstrong.
• The whistleblower film SILENCED is in post-production, but questions loom whether the film will address certain inconvenient facts about its subjects.
• A White House memo directing national security agencies to identify civil service jobs that should be stripped of civil service protections is worrying good government advocates.
• The Justice Department considered input from good government groups that urged it to reform the FBI’s internal whistleblower protection processes.
• Senator Chuck Grassley criticized the Internal Revenue Service for attempting to neuter its whistleblower program, in contravention of congressional intent.
• The Office of Special Counsel urged the Merit Systems Protection Board to apply the newly-enacted Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act to a case that arose before the bill passed, citing the WPEA’s remedial purpose in protecting whistleblowers.

Is it too soon to say things like:

With this remarkable record and the extraordinary leadership of Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, we can expect that as disclosures continue to skyrocket and the caseload grows, [the Office of Special Counsel] will handle their investigations and litigation with utmost efficiency and integrity.

As the Project on Government Oversight did just this past week, or:

The track record under the helm of Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, who assumed office in 2011, is equally as unprecedented as its increased caseload and having increased productivity by over 50% in the past few years[.]

As the Government Accountability Project did a few days ago?

Consider that there are a few grumbles that have arisen so far concerning OSC’s performance:

• Using personal email to conduct government business;
• Allegations of “breakdown in accountability” in investigating improper political activity;
• Employing a template letter to close complaints that shows cursory analysis and use of restrictive standards not warranted under the law;
• Prolonged delays in processing FOIA requests.

Let me be clear: OSC deserves credit for the evident turnaround since the Scott Bloch era. Persistent underfunding continues, in part because the groups mentioned above have not pushed for it before. But this post is not so much about OSC’s performance today, as it is about grounding laudatory statements (and the propensity to make them) with facts. The groups above have a history of jumping to award OSC leadership when, frankly, it did not deserve it. The pattern may be repeating itself here. Facts matter, and the jury is still out.

Not if recent history is any indication. From Sibel Edmonds’ Classified Woman:

On the evening of November 7, 2006, I was one of many national security whistleblowers who sat behind her desktop, online, anticipating the results. Many of us stayed up until late in the night counting, anticipating, and hoping. As now we know, the Democrats won, and became the majority in both House and Senate. We thought we had won; we celebrated online–prematurely. Our list of witnesses (that included my name) and our organized case documentations were ready for our long-anticipated January and February 2007 dreams for a hearing. Now, we felt, nothing could stop us. Our day in court had arrived, courtesy of the Democrats.

The month of January came and went without a single notification, e-mail or phone call from our “handful of congressional angels,” one of whom who had become the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In February, we started to call. No one was returning them. I called and e-mailed our formerly fiery and supportive staff members from Henry Waxman’s office many times. I received no response. We tried three branches–the system of checks and balances–had been tampered with and permanently corrupted. We were a constitutional democracy in name only. Where was the rule of law? This was more than about a single issue or problem affecting some activists; this was a cancer metastisizing at its core, and the people didn’t even know about it.

(Chatter here).