O'Grady responded, “You’re not facing prison for speaking out about the drone program injuring and killing innocent persons," and, "You could have been a whistleblower and garnered all this attention without leaking any of these documents, frankly.”
However, if Hale had spoken to the public about the content of the documents but never taken any of the information, he almost certainly would have still been the target of an Espionage Act prosecution.
Not sure if the writer is naive or obtuse; it's pretty obvious that the judge meant using institutional whistleblowing channels, which would have legally insulated Hale. Of course, it's also that much more likely that the matter would have gone unnoticed by the public and and eventually been buried in red tape.
Imagine how the mainstream media would describe it if say this was in China or Russia. “Dissident sentenced to 45 months imprisonment for blowing the whistle on regime atrocities”
Well we re judging a guy who drove a motorbike into the police in HK and mainstream american media describe it at a crackdown on freedom...
It feels the entire thing is really fake in the US and it s just a giant golden cage where debt-laden poor people look at exagerated external events and told that at least in America they can starve while speaking out.
"Daniel Hale, one of the great American Whistleblowers, was just moments ago sentenced to four years in prison. His crime was telling this truth: 90% of those killed by US drones are bystanders, not the intended targets.
He was convicted of obstructing an official proceeding, I guess that is described as an attack now? Is that some general rule, are people who disrupt official proceedings attackers?
He's paying the price for bringing you the truth; the least you can do is read the articles containing the info he sacrificed so much to bring to publication.
>colleagues at the NGA asked him to join them to watch "war porn" or archived footage of drone strikes
reminds that recent story where police damaged the shoulder joint of a frail woman and were recorded re-watching that bodycam footage at the station joyfully celebrating and congratulating themselves on that popping sound of the joint being damaged while they kept the woman right around the corner waiting for 2 hours for the medical attention.
I view the U.S. intelligence agencies as a necessary evil that should be made less evil over time. We have seen a lot of progress, in large part to whistleblowers like these, and the public reaction they've caused. The agencies are very aware of public perception and do a fairly good job of restraining themselves these days.
One big improvement would be to build up a much larger number of special forces troops to operate these kinds of targeted attacks. They would be much more precise than missile attacks, killing far fewer unarmed women and children (see: the Bin Laden raid).
The trade off is that we would lose a lot more soldiers, but that would be a worthy trade off. These troops could be made up entirely of volunteers. If we're not willing to risk our soldiers, we're probably not confident enough that the enemy is a target worth attacking.
The U.S. military never should have resorted to bombing unarmed women and children in WW2 and beyond. It's time to stop even targeted strikes where unarmed women and children will knowingly be killed.
There's nothing wrong with attacking people who declare themselves deadly enemies through words or actions. But let's have our soldiers go into combat against them head-to-head (with much better gear, of course) and fight it out like an honorable and brave people should.
Well, they literally sit in pundit chairs in major “progressive” media outlets nowadays, and they were absolutely celebrated by those same people for their work continually running ops on Trump. Basically the entire neoliberal/neoconservative class cannot get enough dark intel arts into everyone else’s life.
Can somebody please confirm the percentage of bystanders allowed to be killed when fighting war in a moral fashion? I'm assuming no war/technology is perfect, and nobody can reasonably expect it to be so. I'm also assuming most readers here are OK with our Government fighting a moral war. What percentage is morally acceptable to the readers here?
The problem in this instance is that the percentage is very high on one side and very low on the other, meaning there's little incentive to avoid civilian casualties. Considering that the risk faced by American civilians is approximately zero, the risk to those civilians in other countries that America is at war with should be zero likewise.
> Documents Hale revealed showed “more than 40 percent” of the people in the U.S. government’s database of terrorism suspects have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” The “watchlisting guidance” document he shared helped Muslim Americans clear their names and force the government to remove them from the No Fly List.
Watch the US government make such examples of every whistleblower and even this level of accountability which is purely driven by personal consciousness of individuals to become ineffective in fear of harsher and harsher prosecutions.
Sad indeed. US intelligence agencies have gone rogue and public doesn't really care.
> Hale built on that letter with a statement that lasted a little more than 15 minutes. He said, according to POLITICO's Josh Gerstein, "What I’m really here for is for having stolen something that was never mine to take: precious human life."
> [Judge Liam] O'Grady responded, “You’re not facing prison for speaking out about the drone program injuring and killing innocent persons," and, "You could have been a whistleblower and garnered all this attention without leaking any of these documents, frankly.”
I mean, we've seen how the discussion would go then. "Well sure he says there are outrageous murders happening, but if that were true why isn't there any documentation?".
Looks at how the PRISM leak worked. It turns out in hindsight it was a poorly kept secret and people just dismissed the evidence because it was new and there wasn't documentation.
What this looks like to me is while being a whistleblower is legal, owning a whistle, putting your lips to a whistle and exhaling vigorously into a whistle are all illegal. And suspicious noise pollution regulations for disturbing the peace with unnecessarily piercing sounds.
>So I contacted an investigative reporter with whom I had had an established prior relationship and told him that I had something the American people needed to know."
Most people don’t have an established prior relationship with an investigative reporter. I wonder what other stuff he leaked.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|4 years ago|reply
However, if Hale had spoken to the public about the content of the documents but never taken any of the information, he almost certainly would have still been the target of an Espionage Act prosecution.
Not sure if the writer is naive or obtuse; it's pretty obvious that the judge meant using institutional whistleblowing channels, which would have legally insulated Hale. Of course, it's also that much more likely that the matter would have gone unnoticed by the public and and eventually been buried in red tape.
[+] [-] lambdasquirrel|4 years ago|reply
It’s really hard not to hear the judge’s statement outside of that context.
[+] [-] ALittleLight|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ummonk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] secondaryacct|4 years ago|reply
It feels the entire thing is really fake in the US and it s just a giant golden cage where debt-laden poor people look at exagerated external events and told that at least in America they can starve while speaking out.
The US just terrifies me these days honestly
[+] [-] amin|4 years ago|reply
"Daniel Hale, one of the great American Whistleblowers, was just moments ago sentenced to four years in prison. His crime was telling this truth: 90% of those killed by US drones are bystanders, not the intended targets.
He should have been given a medal."
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1420067662823047172
[+] [-] xvector|4 years ago|reply
HN's audience of all people should be keenly aware of the US government's tendency towards authoritarianism.
[+] [-] 101_101|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MeinBlutIstBlau|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] djabatt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rufus_foreman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|4 years ago|reply
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
He's paying the price for bringing you the truth; the least you can do is read the articles containing the info he sacrificed so much to bring to publication.
[+] [-] neatze|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|4 years ago|reply
reminds that recent story where police damaged the shoulder joint of a frail woman and were recorded re-watching that bodycam footage at the station joyfully celebrating and congratulating themselves on that popping sound of the joint being damaged while they kept the woman right around the corner waiting for 2 hours for the medical attention.
[+] [-] briefcomment|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ericson2314|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staunch|4 years ago|reply
One big improvement would be to build up a much larger number of special forces troops to operate these kinds of targeted attacks. They would be much more precise than missile attacks, killing far fewer unarmed women and children (see: the Bin Laden raid).
The trade off is that we would lose a lot more soldiers, but that would be a worthy trade off. These troops could be made up entirely of volunteers. If we're not willing to risk our soldiers, we're probably not confident enough that the enemy is a target worth attacking.
The U.S. military never should have resorted to bombing unarmed women and children in WW2 and beyond. It's time to stop even targeted strikes where unarmed women and children will knowingly be killed.
There's nothing wrong with attacking people who declare themselves deadly enemies through words or actions. But let's have our soldiers go into combat against them head-to-head (with much better gear, of course) and fight it out like an honorable and brave people should.
[+] [-] traloid|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neatze|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_optimist|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] libertyhouse|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ALittleLight|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zarzavat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalone|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threatofrain|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yann2|4 years ago|reply
As dumb as it might sound, I feel the US still has a big share of honest good people, compared to what I have seen abroad. Sad to watch.
[+] [-] emilsedgh|4 years ago|reply
Sad indeed. US intelligence agencies have gone rogue and public doesn't really care.
[+] [-] joelbondurant|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] f0xytr0xy|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] b0tzzzzzzman|4 years ago|reply
Sobering, disillusioned, and morbid. A heavy weight, a bolder. Reality for a few, but shelter for the many. Or is it?
Anyone care to share what he gave up his life for?
[+] [-] ARandomerDude|4 years ago|reply
> [Judge Liam] O'Grady responded, “You’re not facing prison for speaking out about the drone program injuring and killing innocent persons," and, "You could have been a whistleblower and garnered all this attention without leaking any of these documents, frankly.”
O'Grady has a fair point here actually.
[+] [-] roenxi|4 years ago|reply
Looks at how the PRISM leak worked. It turns out in hindsight it was a poorly kept secret and people just dismissed the evidence because it was new and there wasn't documentation.
What this looks like to me is while being a whistleblower is legal, owning a whistle, putting your lips to a whistle and exhaling vigorously into a whistle are all illegal. And suspicious noise pollution regulations for disturbing the peace with unnecessarily piercing sounds.
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|4 years ago|reply
Most people don’t have an established prior relationship with an investigative reporter. I wonder what other stuff he leaked.