By Andrew Jerell Jones
In January 2012, Kiriakou was charged by the Justice Department for allegedly and repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists. The Justice Department accused Kiriakou of disclosing the identity of a CIA officer involved in Zubaydah’s capture to a freelance reporter. The reporter did not publicly reveal the official’s name, but his name did appear on a website in October 2012. Kiriakou also allegedly provided New York Times reporter Scott Shane information on CIA employee Deuce Martinez, who was involved in Zubaydah’s capture and interrogation.
After agreeing to a plea deal in October 2012, Kiriakou was sentenced in January 2013 to 30 months in prison. That sentence made him the second CIA employee ever to be locked up under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which bars the release of the name of a covert agent; the first was Sharon Scranage, who in 1985 pled guilty to disclosing the identities of intelligence agents in Ghana after giving classified information to a Ghanaian, reportedly her lover.
Kiriakou is not without support from former colleagues. His friend and former boss, Bruce Riedel, sent a letter to President Obama, signed by other CIA officers, urging him to commute Kiriakou’s prison sentence. That did not happen.
A father of five children, Kiriakou says the CIA asked his wife to resign from her job at the agency immediately following his arrest, and he is in major debt from his legal fees.
Kiriakou is is scheduled for early transfer out of federal prison in Loretto, Pennsylvania on February 3. In a wide-ranging phone interview with The Intercept, Kiriakou, 50, shared his thoughts on the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation techniques, on his incarceration, and on his future after prison.
I came within a quarter of a mile of being killed. Twice, twice, I have survived assassination attempts. Once in the Middle East, I wrote about it in my book. And then in Greece. And in Greece, instead of killing me, they killed [British military attaché] Stephen Saunders because he was a quarter of a mile ahead of me [in June 2000]. And they said in their communiqué that they saw me in my car but they knew it was armored and that I was armed. And Stephen Saunders was just in his vehicle he shipped from London and he didn’t have a gun on him. And they killed him instead.
I’ve devoted my whole entire, adult life to the national security. And I’ll go to my grave knowing that I did the right thing.
Editor’s note: The Bagram detention center was closed in December 2014. It remains unclear what the balance of prisoners was between that facility and the so-called “Salt Pit,” a CIA black site, when both were operational.
Editor’s note: It’s been reported that the decision to tape the CIA interrogations “was made in the field.” The tapings began taking place roughly around the time Rodriguez became director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. Rodriguez said in a 60 Minutes interview, “The reason why we taped Abu Zubaydah was because….we wanted to show the world that we actually had nothing to do with his death.” It’s not clear if he personally decided to make the tapes.
After the House Intelligence Committee heard closed testimony from Rizzo, the committee’s senior Republican member, Peter Hoekstra, stated of Rodriguez, “it appears that he got direction to make sure the tapes were not destroyed.” At the time, Rodriguez’s lawyer disputed that account, saying that “nobody, to our knowledge, ever instructed him not to destroy the tapes.”
You told the RT network in 2013 that you would lose a lot of friends inside the CIA for your actions. Has that still been the case?
© First Look Media. All Rights Reserved
Paul Craig Roberts
Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly, and Bonny Mahoney are the kind of people who are imprisoned in America. It is not the perjurers and liars, the torturers, war criminals and mass murderers. It is the good people who peacefully protest the crimes of those who control the US government and its policies.
Since around 1990 I have studied and reported on cases that have resulted in the erosion of the protective features in law that made law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the government. Barrett Brown’s statement to the Judge in his show trial shows that the US Department of Justice has been successful in preventing the system from delivering any justice. The US Court system delivers support for the government’s crimes. That’s it.
Brown’s statement shows how the system works. The government brings false charges against you or they bring charges that are not illegal under law as understood. However, prosecutors invent new interpretations of laws and judges and juries accept legislation-by-prosecutor-to-fit-the-made-up-case. Almost never is a jury involved, not that jurors show any inclination to go against the government’s case. However, prosecutors only face that unlikely risk in 3 or 4 percent of the cases. All other cases are settled on the basis of self-incrimination. The prosecutor tells the defendant and his attorney, “you can admit to this and that and have a sentence of 5 or 10 years. Otherwise, we are indicting you with 105 offenses with imprisonment of at least one lifetime.
Read Brown’s statement to the judge. This young man describes perfectly how the so-called “criminal justice system” actually works. I have seen it time after time in cases I have investigated. Read The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney were sentenced to prison for stepping across the perimeters of Air Force bases in peaceful protests against murder-by-drone. There was no real reason for charges to be brought against them or for a judge to sentence them to prison except to continue to make it crystal clear that the US government tolerates no dissent.
A democracy protected by free speech would permit these demonstrations, but the US is not a democracy and does not have free speech. That is the fact that Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney are proving.
In my opinion, protesting drone murders at Air Force bases that operate the killer drones is unlikely to be effective in stopping the murders. Suppose the protests resulted in a base commander having second thoughts. What can he possibly do about it? If he disobeys orders, he would face a court martial. If he expresses doubts or makes protests to higher ups, he would be removed and a worse murderer would be put in his place.
To be effective in halting the drone murders, the protests would have to be very large and persistent, and the protests would have to focus on Congress and the White House. They would need public support, but would get none from the presstitute media or from “law and order” conservatives, patriot organizations, neoconservatives, or liberals who have bought into the “war on terror.”
What Brown, Kelly, and Mahoney are in fact proving is that the US is lawless in the sense that law serves only the government and its agenda. In America law no longer has any other meaning. There is no rule of law. We are ruled by the government’s agenda.
Article printed from PaulCraigRoberts.org: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org
URL to article: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/23/law-murdered-paul-craig-roberts/
URLs in this post: