After 43 Years, Activists Admit Theft At FBI Office That Exposed Domestic Spying - NBCNews

[WillyT]

After 43 years, activists admit theft at FBI office that exposed domestic spying
By Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
1/6/14


John and Bonnie Raines today.

<snip>

Forty-three years after the mysterious theft of up to 1,000 documents from an FBI office outside Philadelphia, three former political activists are publicly confessing to the brazen burglary, calling it an act of “resistance” that exposed “massive illegal surveillance and intimidation.”

“We did it … because somebody had to do it,” John Raines, 80, a retired professor of religion at Temple University, said in an interview with NBC News. “In this case, by breaking a law -- entering, removing files -- we exposed a crime that was going on. … When we are denied the information we need to have to act as citizens, then we have a right to do what we did.”

Raines, his wife, Bonnie, and Keith Forsyth, a former Philadelphia cab driver, said they were part of an eight-member ring of anti-Vietnam War protesters that —while much of the country was gripped by the so-called “Fight of the Century” in New York between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier— broke into the FBI’s Media, Penn., office on March 8, 1971.

Members of the burglary team, armed with little more than a crowbar and wearing suits and ties, then walked off undetected with suitcases stuffed with sensitive bureau files that revealed a domestic FBI spying operation known as COINTELPRO. The heist enraged the bureau’s legendary Director J. Edgar Hoover , who launched a massive but ultimately futile manhunt.

The identities of the burglars are revealed in a book being published Tuesday...

<snip>

More: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/06/22205443-after-43-years-activists-admit-theft-at-fbi-office-that-exposed-domestic-spying?lite

[MADem]

1. Don't they look like charming grandparents...!

They did that deed BEFORE FOIA:

With the five-year statute of limitations on burglary long since expired and the case officially closed, Raines, his wife and Forsyth said they have few fears about revealing their identities now. To the contrary, they spoke with pride about their roles during several interviews.

[WillyT]

3. Nice To Know This Pisses You Off... You Don't Like American Heroes, Do You ???

Curious... you being allegedly from Massachusetts.

The home of American Heroes.

[Luminous Animal]

5. +1 We are no longer the home of the brave.

Mostly mewling fearful sycophants from one end of our narrow end of our state sanctioned political spectrum to the other end of our state sanctioned political spectrum.

[MADem]

9. He made a nasty, personally insulting comment, and you cheerlead it.

Real nice.

Too bad for him, his thesis is a big fail.

[Luminous Animal]

16. To bad for you, that you are now a surveillance

state cheerleader. Kudos for them that they are not and support Snowden. They were on the right side of history then and now.

[MADem]

20. I have a problem with thieves who run to dictatorships and continue to

create chaos.

Snowden hasn't solved any problems. He's created them. He could have gone to his Libertarian Paulbotty buddy, Rand, on the Intel subcommittee, and resolved this issue. Instead, he's offering his services to foreign nations and releasing classified material about them as well.

He's not coming home, unless he comes by way of Club Fed.

[Luminous Animal]

22. Clearly those people praised Snowden. "You" are no longer "you"

Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal.

[JDPriestly]

26. Sen. Wyden was warning about problems with the surveillance of some sort before Snowden

released his documents. But Wyden, although an elected member of Congress, was unable to speak out and tell us what was going on because even he would have been violating the law had he given any details out about the program.

So, Snowden could not have achieved what he wanted to do -- inform and set off a discussion among the American people about the extent of the surveillance and the violations of the Constitution by the NSA if he had simply gone to a member of Congress with what he knew.

Snowden's revelations are frustrating to the NSA and the right-wing hawks in Congress, but they are importnat to me. So I am glad Snowden did what he did.

It is easy to say he could have told Rand Paul, but had he done that, Paul's mouth would have been shut, Snowden's superiors at the NSA as well as the FBI would have silenced Snowden.

Remember, Snowden was not the first whistleblower at the NSA. Previous whistleblowers paid an enormous personal cost, lost security clearances and therefore their jobs because they told their bosses first and then went public with this information that shows how utterly dangerous the NSA is to our democracy.

Thomas Drake is an example of someone who followed the protocol. He has been harassed mercilessly.

Snowden had no choice other than to sitii and watch the illegal NSA program continue silently until it was too latel

If Snowden waits long enough he will be pardoned. The surveillance that the NSA is performing is way beyond what is needed to fight terrorism.

[Luminous Animal]

28. And as if the exposure of COINTELPRO didn't create "problems".

[MADem]

33. Congress IS capable of conducting hearings in closed session, and if you don't think that staffers

leak stuff to get conversations going, I've a bridge for sale. How soon we forget the leaking of the name of CIA operative Valierie Plame?

To say "Nothing can be done" because of classification is just not true.

We have to assume that Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese, have the name of many if not all of our operatives abroad. That's just bad news. For us, and for them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

55. I get the impression Rand Paul is only making a big deal out of this....

...... because it IS big news and he thinks he can blame Obama.

Absent the big news and revelations, he would probably keep his flapper shut. The guy doesn't give two shits about the issue.

And if that info regarding operatives abroad was so loosely held that a low level contractor had it, the Chinese and Russians already had it.

[MADem]

60. Sure, I don't disagree with you there. But my point is, Randy has access to

SCIF-like facilities, where he can discuss these concerns with others who have the level of clearance that twerp gets as a consequence of his subcommittee assignment. I think he's not stupid, even if he is an asshole--and this is an issue where, had Eddie gone to HIM rather than Hong Kong, he could have made some serious hay--beyond his teabagger base-- while the sun shone. He could have been the lectern-pounder; the finger wagger, the looker-askancer. All he has to do is talk to a LOT of people with his same level of clearance, in detail, in a classified setting, then do a little judicious, domestic leaking, and we're off to the races and this is a matter that is being discussed, publicly, on the domestic stage. And this could have been done without having the names of US operatives and assets out there in the "Snowden ether," perhaps already plucked to earth by Pootie's clever hackers, or the intrepid soldiers working at PLA Unit 61398 who are quite skilled at getting what, and where, they want. And of course, Eddie would be a rock star--not a lightning rod. I suspect he'd rather be the former. I also suspect this shit didn't work out how he thought it might.

I'm not talking about "operatives" like that American attache at the embassy who does a little work on the side, I'm talking about that Lieutenant Colonel who is inside the adversary's military, that mid-level staffer at the foreign government leadership level, that NGO schmuck who might know a little stuff that we might want to know, people like that, who are having little chats with our team and perhaps saying more than their governments might like. Those people get killed if they get found out, they don't do a nice five to seven in a Club Fed, or even a harsher solid twenty in a maximum security facility.

Of course, the horse has long left the barn, but that would have--even with the introduction of a teabagger asswipe (because ES liked those guys) at the center of the story--been infinitely preferable for all concerned, I think, than what he's doing, which is pooping out a little revelation here, a little revelation there (latest up to bat--Israel--while Kerry is trying to work a deal in that regiion) just to call the attention back to himself. With every petulant little "I Have a Secret" dump he does, he chains himself inexorably to Pootie.

He'd better be careful, though. Pootie would give up Eddie in a Moscow minute (I'm convinced that his guys have already gotten everything they want from Ed, even if Ed thinks otherwise) in exchange for any valued Russian asset who was caught spying over here--after all, in Pootie's eyes, they are Brave and Loyal Russians, and ES is just an American Traitor.

We've regressed to the John LeCarre days--I suppose a Cold War is better than a hot one, but make no mistake, we're back to those "Good Old Bad Old Days." We have been for awhile, as evidenced by the Anna Chapman, et.al. "illegals" swap. I think we'll see more of this, not less, because, messy as it is, HUMINT has value to confirm the reality we learn from all of the Keyhole-type and hacker-technical intrusions we might make. They know it, too, and that's why THEY do it as well. The only one who didn't figure this out was Eddie.

[sabrina 1]

74. What happened to the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity and undercover work? So Congress held

hearings. They hold lots of hearings. What came of those hearings?

The only criminal held even partly accountable NOT because of Congress but because they could not make the story go away considering who the victims were and how outspoken they were, was Libby. And he never spent a day in jail being pardoned for his role in the cover up for the main perpetrator.

Cheney is honored now in this country as an 'elder statesman' despite the knowledge that he and Karl Rove, Gonzales et al were the guilty parties. Did Congress follow up on the court case, did they hold public hearings to force Rove and Cheney and Gonzales before them, UNDER OATH to answer to them PUBLICLY for their role in that crime?

We know what happens to Whistle Blowers who use the 'proper channels' and we know that even highly respected, long time Government and Military career people, end up being persecuted, lose their careers and are smeared and attacked as traitors. We don't have to look far, it happened to several law-ABIDING Whistle Blowers during the past decade.

And worse, nothing was done about the actual crimes.

So future Whistle Blowers, and you could put Snowden into that category, having watched the treatment of Whistle Blowers, Manning another tragic example, will never trust the 'proper channels' again and will use other channels, as Snowden did until the Rule of Law is restored in this country.

[MADem]

75. Code Pink made a mockery of those hearings, which resulted in very little coverage.

I'm sure the right wing was delighted by their efforts, which had nothing to do with Plame at all, but they were surely doing the devil's work, whether they knew it or not.

They didn't hold lots of hearings on Plame. They should have, though.

Snowden isn't a whistleblower. He is a thief of government classified documents. If Glenn Greenwald gives him a single dime, he's a seller of them, too.

[sabrina 1]

78. Can't answer the question? I can, NOTHING happened to the leaker. Thanks Congress.

Snowden is a Whistle Blower, smart enough to have figured out that no Whistle Blower is safe in the US today and anyone foolish enough to fall for the 'go by the rules' after watching what happened to those who DID follow the rules, isn't going to accomplish much as far as protecting the People from corruption and Constitutional Violations. A very smart, heroic Whistle Blower.

Of course Congress didn't hold 'too many hearings'. They didn't hold enough to force Karl Rove to answer their subpoena either, he thumbed his nose at them when they demanded he appear before Congress re the US Attorney Scandal.

A mockery HAS been made of the rule of law but it isn't Code Pink, more heroes btw, who are mocking it.

[MADem]

79. What do you mean, "can't answer the question?" Your memory is faulty. The leaker was convicted.

His li'l buddy George got him a pass, and commuted his sentence; and he avoided the specific charge of leaking the NAME of Plame, but we all knew he did it, and he was convicted of peripheral charges--how soon people forget! The guy is a convicted felon now. I think YOU are the one who's having trouble "answering the question."

Remember this guy?

On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. He was not charged for revealing Plame's CIA status. His sentence included a $250,000 fine, 30 months in prison and two years of probation. On July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, removing the jail term but leaving in place the fine and probation, calling the sentence "excessive."[43][44] In a subsequent press conference, on July 12, 2007, Bush noted, "...the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision."[45] The Wilsons responded to the commutation in statements posted by their legal counsel, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and on their own legal support website.

If it had been up to me, I'd have given him a five year sentence at a minimum, five to ten better still. But George got him off.

As for the people he leaked TO...well, we know what happened to them.


Dead. As DOORNAILS. You do know that, don't you?

You wanna dig 'em up and go after 'em for spreading the word? Lotta good that'll do....

[sabrina 1]

80. Libby was convicted of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. You know what that means don't you? He

protected the master minds of that crime. He was not the one who planned and executed the crime. He was merely an 'ally' and he would not talk to the prosecutor about what he knew. So he was convicted ONLY of obstruction of justice.

It was up to Congress to hold hearings, IMPEACHMENT hearings for the VP considering what was revealed during that investigation.

But we don't seem to take the crimes of the powerful very seriously any more. Not even a hearing to determine if the VP of the US participated in the outing of an undercover agent.

Again the Messenger, Joe Wilson, rather than being applauded for the information he provided, was PUNISHED when a conspiracy was hatched to expose his wife work as an undercover agent endangering her and anyone she was working with. THAT is treason.

So you see, people who expose the crimes of the powerful in this country have to be very careful to find some safe haven before they do report the crimes they have witnessed to the American people.

Name ONE Whistle Blower since they began reporting the crimes that began with the Bush/Cheney gang who was treated fairly and whose revelations led to the investigation, arrest and conviction of the CRIMINALS. I can't think of ONE.

Libby took the fall knowing he would be fully rewarded for it. The rich are different, they make their own rules and we have allowed it to go on for so long it's reminiscent of the old Monarchies. The rule of law doesn't apply to them and trying to defend that is simply reprehensible and the reason why it is the way it is.

[MADem]

81. Obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury.

John Conyers held hearings into the commutation. So go yell at him, why don't you? You know, the reason that impeachment hearings aren't held (and they would have been held in a Democratically-controlled House between 07 and 09) is because sometimes there's just no "there" there--what you regard as a "crime" is rude, nasty, underhanded--but not a crime. Or not a PROVABLE crime. Or perhaps the hearings would take longer than Porgie and Big Dick had left in office, by the time they would have been able to fire them up.

Nevertheless, that evening CNN reported that, pursuant to widespread criticism by Democratic leaders and other Democratic politicians, Representative John Conyers, Jr. announced that there would be a formal Congressional investigation of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence and other presidential reprieves.[36] "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials", held by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and chaired by Congressman Conyers, occurred on July 11, 2007.[55][56][57]

Here's the transcript-it's a couple of hundred pages, maybe you can find something in there to assuage your agita -- I'm not going to dig through the thing, the end result is that it served as the equivalent of a "strongly worded letter." Bush didn't give a shit and he got away with it, because he maximized his control of "executive privilege" and his staff practiced message discipline and kept their mouths shut. They made sure to not leave much in the way of a paper trail, either. They were assholes, but they weren't stupid.

[sabrina 1]

83. I and most Democrats are more than familiar with all that happened during what at one time, looked

as if finally, the whole criminal organization, the secret government, the lies about war, ALL OF IT, might finally be ended. But that didn't happen, and I don't need any links to remember the details.

Cheney and Rove were most definitely implicated.

'Agita', is that what respecting the rule of law is now?? Conyers had his wife attacked, remember? And it is clear that ANYONE, Snowden eg, Greenwald the most recent, who dares to expose the crimes, will be smeared, they even PAY for it as we discovered thanks to Anonymous. Or worse. Rove has had people railroaded into JAIL, while that little weasel remains free.

Your anger is so misdirected it is stunning. And those who dismiss these crimes are complicit in their escape from justice. But that is changing, thankfully, even Republicans, and there were more than we knew at the time, are not willing to betray their country for 'partisanship'. Kudos to them for putting their country first.

They WERE stupid. They did not 'cover their tracks', they were PROTECTED and not just by one party. Otoh, knowing now that all of them were under surveillance it's hard to blame them for 'keeping their mouths shut' after seeing what was done to those who did not. And until there is unity and some people STOP excusing and/or dismissing all of these crimes, hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS have been slaughtered due to their criminal lies. If THAT can be dismissed so lightly, there is no hope for this country. But it isn't being dismissed, not by people with integrity and morality many of them former supporters of Bush, but far more loyal to their country.

So keep on attacking the wrong people, which you appear to do constantly for some reason. Meantime as the numbers of people who WILL NOT excuse them grows and as more Whistle Blowers emerge, and they will I am certain, it is going to be more and more difficult to try to 'explain' it all away. There is no statute of limitation on murder, and Iraq was murder and sooner or later as history shows, even the most powerful have finally been brought to justice. When you create so very many victims, the odds are that justice will be done on their behalf.

See South America and our former dictator allies down there. It took a few decades but the victims' loved ones never gave up and some of the most powerful are now sitting in prison with lots of time to contemplate how, since they were so smart they thought, and powerful, did they so miscalculate the yearning for justice.

[MADem]

86. So what's your solution? "Slash and burn?" "Throw 'em all out" because they didn't

mount an impeachment with insufficient evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanours?" Not "Yeah, we KNOW he did it" but actual, footprints on the carpet to the Oval Office proof?

I see you're already well into "attack the messenger" mode, something you 'appear to do constantly.'. Talk about "attacking the wrong people!" and "misdirected anger!" You're doing precisely what you're accusing me of doing. You can't get a conviction without actual evidence--I don't care how smarmy and snarky you get on DU, it doesn't work that way. All that dot connecting has to happen. Dumbya's administration played it smart and they didn't leak or talk or rat each other out too much, at least not contemporaneously.

This doesn't mean--because I speak of REALITY--that I "like" this turn of events. I just live in the real world.

[sabrina 1]

87. My solution was to elect Dems in 2008. Remember? What is yours, to give up and accept it? All the

while lashing out at those who worked hard on the solution, the ONLY one availabe in a democracy. We DID slash and burn them, threw them all out, took over Congress, the WH and the Senate only to have them reinstalled to positions of power in a Dem Cabinet.

And as soon as we won that election we were told to 'move forward' from all the crimes, that it was 'in the best interests of the country' remember???

Now it's your turn. Other that 'elect more Dems' which we DID to solve these problems, since that didn't work, what is YOUR solution??

[MADem]

92. Well, I don't vote for Republicans, so what are you on me about?

I like to vote for a) Democrats, and b) Candidates who can WIN.

I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I think that, after the 2008 election, if you remember, we got ourselves a new President.

You do understand what "impeachment" is, don't you? It's not frog marching, it's not jailing, it's not even fining--it's getting the person out of office. And even if you could get the razor-thin House to decide on charges, you seriously think you're going to get a super-majority of the Senate to try/convict? I have a bridge for sale, with four newly opened lanes in Fort Lee, NJ, if you believe that. Since the election accomplished getting the GOP out of the executive branch, "impeachment" was--quite sensibly-- off the table. You don't beat a dead horse, particularly when you spend taxpayer money to so do. It was pointless at that moment in time.

My "solution" is "elect more Dems." You might not like that, but that's how it's done. You do know that all appropriations begin in the House, nu? The GOP controls the American purse strings--they can hold up the budget, they can fail to fund social programs, they control the AGENDA to determine how spending happens. Or doesn't. You could have a hundred "D" Senators, but without control of the House (and I mean "control"--not a hair-thin majority, either) your agenda is b-l-o-c-k-e-d.

If you seriously think it would have made no difference (Goodbye, Equality! ACA? Fuggedaboutit!!!! Lily Ledbetter Act? Dream on! Hello Syria! Helllooooo, Iran! Welcome Back, Iraq! War Without End, Amen!) had Nutjob McCain/Palin won in 08, or rMoney/Lyin-Ryan in 12, then you can just have that doggone bridge for free. And there's no shame in taking the contributions of even "imperfect" independents, if they're willing to throw money at Dem PACS, to elect "more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office." It's why we're here, after all.

[sabrina 1]

73. Mmm, Ellsberg suffered the same attacks when he decided that the welfare of the country and the

enormous benefit involved to his country, by exposing crimes, superceded the laws and required him to do his job as a citizen. He is now universally viewed as a hero and he Court agreed with him.

Btw, he too supports Snowden.

Laws are not sacrosanct and when they are blocking the greater good of the public, they not ony should be broken, they need to be broken, and then rewritten to make sure that NOTHING prevents the reporting of serious crimes against the Constitution, the ONLY requirement made of elected officials AND our military. To defend and protect the Constitution of the US.

Btw, who 'ran off to dictators' with information? We have a lot of dictator allies in this country. Our government eg, FUNDS dictators like Karimov in Uzbekistan, the Bahraini dictatorship among others. I take it you consider such support to be reprehensible? I know I do.

Snowden is a hero as are this couple.

Let me ask you. If you witnessed a crime would you report it or not? Would be infuenced by WHO was committing the crime or would you simply report it, regardless?

[MADem]

76. Ellsberg didn't run away, and he didn't write letters to foreign governments offering his services.

He faced the music and he was vindicated--and he's made a very nice living off doing the right thing (which was a pleasant side benefit of his bravery)--ever since then.

Just because "he supports Snowden" doesn't mean he's right. He did a good thing, nearly half a century ago. That doesn't make him the font of wisdom on all things.

Tell me, now--how much jail time did he do? Hmmmm?

I don't have a problem with "reporting crimes." But I'd call 911, not Vladimir Putin or the Chinese.

[Luminous Animal]

82. Actually, he did go into hiding. But, quite a few people at the RAND corp knew were certain who

had leaked so his identity was known to the Feds when he turned himself in. And certainly, the members of Congress who had approached knew his identity. He really had no choice but to try to live underground for the rest of his life or turn himself in. He faced up to 115 years in prison. Fortunately for him, the Nixon admin was so inept that they blew their case against him.

But, if it had gone Nixon's way, he might still be in jail to this day. A fate, apparently, you think is a-okay because, "he faced the music."

Hmmmm?

Similar to you vis a vis Snowden, there were people who propagandized that he was a communist spy and a traitor and a threat to national security.

Hmmmm?

[MADem]

93. Wow, your 'justification' is that you want to think I think him being jailed

would have been a-ok because he faced the music? How very lame! That's all you've got?

He wasn't convicted not because the government was incompetent, but because the government had deliberately lied, and they used criminal methods (b + e) to access his medical records in aid of that goal and they also wiretapped him without a warrant, among other issues.

This is not "similar" to Snowden. Ellsberg didn't run and sell his information in exchange for room and board to our adversaries. He simply revealed an analysis of historical records going back over twenty years that showed that DoD wasn't being forthright with both Congress and the American people about the conduct of a very specific war that we were prosecuting in Southeast Asia, and that a number of Administrations were facilitating that dissimulation.

And where's Snowden's "Mike Gravel," pray tell? If you recall, he read several thousand pages of the documents Ellsberg had worked on into the Congressional Record, and that's when we all learned that a Senator can't be tried for treason or what-have-you for ANYTHING they say on the Senate floor. So who has stepped forward to hook Eddie up in that fashion? Why isn't anyone "pulling a Mike" on his behalf? It ain't Bernie Sanders. It ain't Dandy Randy Paul. They don't want ES shot, but they do want him to face that music you seem to be excoriating me about--and I'll bet they'd be singing a different tune if he'd gone to THEM and not Vladimir Putin. They don't want him locked up forever and the key thrown away, but they both agree he should do some jail time.

See, Snowden isn't getting the same "circle the wagons" protection from public figures (and many spoke out on behalf of Ellsberg) because Ellsberg didn't run away. He stayed and made his case. That's called "facing the music" you see. Snowden, though, took off to Hong Kong and hid in the RUSSIAN Consulate. That's the opposite of "facing the music"--and he has continued to release documents, almost in a taunting fashion, that have damaged our intelligence posture. Who knows if he's revealed more to China and Russia that has endangered both our operatives and assets--we have no way of knowing, because he cannot be trusted.

Further, he's got more shit out there in the cloud, and he's determined to keep dropping bits here and there, like turds, every time the attention drifts away from himself--and that, in and of itself, is a curious thing...how long will Pootie ignore the fact that he told Snowden he could stay, so long as he stopped leaking information damaging to the USA? At any time, at any moment, USA could cut a deal with Russia, and the more Snowden leaks, the more he paints himself into a corner from which he'll not be able to extricate himself.

So, you can "Hmmmmmmm" all day to yourself, but the cases are apples and oranges; they're just not the same at all.

[newfie11]

47. +infinity Nt

[MADem]

6. You have a reading comprehension problem.

In a big way.

It doesn't "piss me off" at all. I remember those days. I resemble those guys!

In fact, the fact that it doesn't "piss me off" probably pisses YOU off!

[Luminous Animal]

15. You may have resembled those "guys"

But you've left those days behind to champion the prosecution of hose who expose the surveillance state.

Raines said he now feels emboldened. And he also feels a special kinship with Snowden, the NSA leaker and current fugitive: “From one whistleblower to another, ‘Hi,’” he said, waving to a camera.[/block quote]

You are no longer emboldened by people like Snowden, you are afraid of them.

Looking forward to your 8 paragraph response.

[MADem]

17. Just give it up.

Those people were involved in protesting a war that killed fifty eight thousand of us, and their goal was to ensure DOMESTIC tranquility.

Snowden is running around tattling about intel tactics that every country uses--he's not helping US, he's helping Putin. His latest shenanigans with Israel come just in time to fuck up any efforts Kerry makes vis a vis Palestine.

Not the same, but thanks for playing--and you've not been able to get those eight out of me for awhile have you? Try coming up with new material for a change--you used that lame "eight paragraphs" comment LAST time you tried/failed to snark.

[Luminous Animal]

19. No. I won't give it up. And so happy that these people who allegedly were you, praised Snowden

They are more you than you.

Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal.

[MADem]

21. You have a nice day, now. Try to get some help for that issue you have. nt

[Luminous Animal]

23. Truly. It is an itch that I have to scratch from time to time

and it a satisfying scratch.

Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal.

[MADem]

34. Your itch, in less than eight paragraphs, is infected. Get some ointment on it. nt

[Luminous Animal]

36. Indeed. I have. You are my ointment. And a very satisfying ointment you are.

Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal "you" old radical "you"!

[MADem]

38. "Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal....."

[Luminous Animal]

40. .

[MADem]

41. ....

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. I think you mis-read him.

Let's all have a group hug.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Hey Willy, you are better than that..

I did not read Madem's post at all the way you took it.
Quite possible you mis-understood what she was saying, ya think?

[Luminous Animal]

25. Nope. Willy is spot on.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Given that Cointelpro was only stopped by its exposure

even if FOIA had been in existence, a request would have yielded highly redacted info, if that.

[MADem]

8. Well, my point was--and plainly you with your "plus one" yee hawing missed it--

that FOIA came OUT OF these revelations.

People should be able to ask for material. There was no mechanism to so do when this event took place.

Even highly redacted material can yield information. But back then, there was no way to obtain even highly redacted documents.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Clearly. You haven't a clue. Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal

[MADem]

18. Again--give it up. You embarrass yourself. nt

[Luminous Animal]

24. Really. You cover yourself with the mantle of those who exposed FBI un-Constitutional surveillance..

claiming, that was "you." Trying to ramp up your lefty cred. When, in fact, the real lefties... those you actually did lefty things, are praising Snowden and crediting him for their self outing.

While they (and that purportedly "you" - you lefty thang you!) praise him, "you" damn him.

How embarrassing.

Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal.

[MADem]

35. Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal.

[Luminous Animal]

39. .

I

know

you

are

but

what

am

I?

[MADem]

42. "Click."

[progressoid]

61. FOIA!?!

[MADem]

62. Your example is a page from ACLU v. Ashcroft LAWSUIT.

How did that pan out, now?

The Court subsequently found section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional. It reasoned that it could not find in the provision an implied right for the person receiving the subpoena to challenge it in court as is constitutionally required.

The finding of unconstitutionality essentially dismisses any claimed presumptive legal need for absolute secrecy in regard to terrorism cases. The USA PATRIOT Act is affected only if the limits on NSLs in terrorism cases also apply to non-terrorism cases such as those authorized by the Act.[4] The government was expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and until the district court ruling is reviewed, the secrecy procedures of the NSL remain in place.[citation needed]

...On August 10, 2010, after 6 years Nicholas Merrill was partially released from his gag order and allowed to reveal his identity, although he could not reveal what information the FBI sought from him. This was 3 years after Merill won a 'liberty award' from the ACLU, which had to present the award to an empty chair at the time. Merrill has since founded the nonprofit Calyx Institute to provide education and research on privacy issues.

The Doe v. Ashcroft/Gonzales/Mukasey/Holder case yielded two significant rulings. The first was a September 2004 district court decision that the national security letter statute was unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the law to allow a recipient to challenge the demand for records and the gag order.[5] The second was a December 2008 appeals court decision that held that parts of the amended gag provisions violated the First Amendment and that, to avoid this, the FBI must prove to a court that disclosure would harm national security in cases where the recipient resists the gag order.[6]

On August 10, 2010, after more than 6 years, Nicholas Merrill was partially released from his gag order and allowed to reveal his identity, although he still cannot reveal what information the FBI sought from him.[7] This was 3 years after Merrill won The Roger Baldwin 'Medal of Liberty'[8] award from the ACLU, which had to present the award to an empty chair at the time. Merrill has founded the nonprofit Calyx Institute to provide education and research on privacy issues.[9]

He held the talk "The importance of resisting Excessive Government Surveillance" at the annual Chaos Communication Congress 2010 from the German Hacker Group Chaos Computer Club in which he told his story of the past 6 years.

Full ruling here:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/FilesPDFs/nsl_decision.pdf

Not sure what you're rolling on the floor about...the ACLU pretty much won that one.

[progressoid]

65. Here's why

Freedom of Information Regulations: Still Outdated, Still Undermining Openness

Majority of Agencies Have Not Updated FOIA Rules to Meet Either Obama's 2009 Order or Congress's 2007 Law


Washington, DC, March, 2013 – A clear majority of federal agencies have failed to update their Freedom of Information Act regulations to comply either with Congress's changes to the law in 2007 or President Obama's and Attorney General Holder's changes to the policy in 2009, according to a revised government-wide audit published today by the independent non-governmental National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) to mark Sunshine Week.

...

Because agencies have not changed their FOIA regulations, some are still charging improper FOIA fees (and being defended in court by the Justice Department), and OGIS has had to conduct agency-by-agency outreach to inform FOIA shops of its mission which includes working to solve FOIA disputes through mediation rather than court battles.

An even larger number of agencies – 59 out of 100 – ignored the 2009 Obama-Holder guidance in their regulations. That guidance declared a "presumption of disclosure," encouraged discretionary releases even when the information might technically be covered by an exemption, if there was no foreseeable harm, ordered proactive online publication of records of greatest interest to the public, and told agencies to remove "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles."

Despite Holder's guidance, the government used the "discretionary" b(5) exemption 66,353 times last year, actually rising 17.9 percent from the previous year. (The number of FOIA requests processed rose only 5.3 percent.) Though there have been some examples of proactive posting of documents (including the Department of Interior's and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ongoing posting of Deepwater Horizon documents), "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles" such as petty fee disputes and endless interagency referrals still frustrate requesters and lead in some case to twenty-year-old FOIA requests.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB417/

OR

FOIA Requests Being Denied More Due To Security Reasons Than Any Time Since Obama Took Office

People submitted more than 590,000 requests for information in fiscal 2012 – an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year. Including leftover requests from previous years, the government responded to more requests than ever in 2012 – more than 603,000 – a 5 percent increase for the second consecutive year.

When the government withheld or censored records, it cited exceptions built into the law to avoid turning over materials more than 479,000 times, a roughly 22 percent increase over the previous year. In most cases, more than one of the law's exceptions was cited in each request for information.

...

U.S. courts are loath to overrule the administration whenever it cites national security. A federal judge, Colleen McMahon of New York, in January ruled against The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to see records about the government's legal justification for drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas, including American citizens. She cited an "Alice in Wonderland" predicament in which she was expected to determine what information should be revealed but unable to challenge the government's secrecy claim. Part of her ruling was sealed and made available only to the government's lawyers.

"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules – a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

OR: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024294717

ETC ETC ETC

[MADem]

71. So....Obama and Holder AREN'T the bad guys? That's a switch, particularly here.

Perhaps Congress could call in some of the leadership of the agencies marked in red in your first link, and give them a talking-to? They sure love the pompous "call on the carpet" thing over nothing, it would be nice to see them demand an overhaul from those in non-compliance and require them to give regular updates, as they do for so much other stuff.

Your last (non DU) excerpt I believe came from here -- I note that a lot of the agencies that AP looked at were the problematic ones in red in the first link, which could skew their overall results.

The 33 agencies that AP examined were: Agency for International Development, CIA, Agriculture Department, Commerce Department, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Defense Department, Education Department, Energy Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, Justice Department, Labor Department, State Department, Transportation Department, Treasury Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Election Commission, Federal Trade Commission, NASA, National Science Foundation, National Transportation Safety Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service.

That said, there's no reason why, now, particularly, they can't get off their asses and be responsive. If they don't have a knowledgeable FOIA facilitator on their staffs, they need to gin up some training and make that happen. If it were me in charge, I'd do an interagency training program, and run it in modules in a distance-learning format--like "Khan Academy" for FOIA. That way anyone could access it without having to go on temporary assignment to some stupid sleepy slideshow training. Then, when they were done, they could take an online test and be certified in the process.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of FOIAs in the military sphere, I can tell you that at least half the time, the "denial" has more to do with shitty filing/recordkeeping or the fact that records are, as a matter of routine, purged every two to three years than nefariousness. Other times, the Privacy Act gets in the way. That said, I had to laugh at the email from the O-4. Talk about incompetent! Imagine the humiliation of having to go to work at OPNAV every day, and having everyone from the E-1 who just reported aboard to the four stars in the passageways giving ya the "You dumbass" stink-eye!

[Luminous Animal]

2. Cowards. They should have admitted their crime at the time

and done their time.

[Downtown Hound]

88. Blah, blah, blah. Police state humper.

[Luminous Animal]

90. That was sarcasm

[Downtown Hound]

91. My bad. Sorry. Sometimes, it's hard to tell around here.

[El_Johns]

7. K&R: What they looked like more or less during the period:

“I was horrified that our government was lying to us about what was actually happening in Vietnam,” said Bonnie Raines, who later worked as a child care advocate. “And all the usual things we always did — picketing, marching, signing petitions — didn’t make any difference whatsoever.”

Their frustrations led them to acts of civil disobedience, including breaking into Philadelphia area Selective Service offices and destroying draft cards. In pulling off those raids, they got assistance from a fellow protester, Forsyth, who said he developed a skill at picking the locks on the draft board office by taking a correspondence course.

In the fall of 1970, an informal leader of their protest group , the late Bill Davidon, then a physics professor at Haverford College, proposed a more risky operation: breaking into a local FBI office in order to get proof of FBI surveillance of the peace movement.

But Raines said he now feels emboldened. And he also feels a special kinship with Snowden, the NSA leaker and current fugitive: “From one whistleblower to another, ‘Hi,’” he said, waving to a camera.

And he’s got a message for the FBI agents who looked for him for years.

“Aren’t you glad you failed?” he said. “… Aren’t we all glad you failed?”

http://www.popularresistance.org/activists-who-broke-into-fbi-office-stole-cointelpro-papers-reveal-their-identities/

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. Rob and Laura Petrie

[Luminous Animal]

13. Without a doubt, outing themselves will make Snowden very happy!

[nilesobek]

64. A really amazing story.

Also, a well written article. Its interesting that they related their circumstances to Snowden.

They did a great job of keeping the secret. Silence is a friend that will never betray you. Thanks for this story.

[AverageJoe90]

27. These folks seem to be pretty honorable themselves.

Though, in all honesty, I do feel they're doing themselves a disservice by comparing themselves to Fast Eddie Snowden.....he is a traitorous coward who fled to Russia. These two were *real* patriots, along the lines of Daniel Ellsberg.

Regardless, though, I do hope that they will be vindicated & praised by the history books.....let it be so.

[Luminous Animal]

29. If they are so honorable, why didn't they expose themselves from the get go?

Because, similar to Edward Snowden, they did not want to go to jail. They "fled" behind the fact that they were never exposed and thus never caught. Ellsberg never had that luxury.

[El_Johns]

43. So what?

[madrchsod]

49. so you are calling them cowards?

[Fumesucker]

51. I think the poster is pointing out that some others here would call them cowards

Cowards because they did not submit themselves to the punishment for their crime.

[madrchsod]

56. thanks...

sometimes it`s hard to figure out stuff here at du.

[Kablooie]

30. I hope there's a statute of limitations on their "crime".

[MADem]

37. Five years for burglary--long passed. They are safe. nt

[Jenoch]

31. I would be more impressed with their courage if they had nof waited 43 years to come forward.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Hahahaha!!!! Their courage was the original theft. They've come forward to support Snowden.

What have you done in you life that is even the tiniest bit courageous?

[Jenoch]

44. When I was 20 I dove into a lake

and pulled two people out of an overturned car. Both the driver and passenger survived. It happened across the street from our house. What have you done?

Last October the family asked me to the funeral of the man who I pulled from the lake. I was never more humbled in my life.

[Hissyspit]

45. Kick nt

[Savannahmann]

46. I guess it proves the FBI was no more competent 43 years ago than they are now

Of course, it also proves that the FBI hasn't changed one damned thing or learned to respect the rights of citizens since then either.

[madrchsod]

48. spy vs spy

sometimes ya win ,sometimes ya lose.

i`d like to thank john, bonnie ,and keith for exposing this . a lot of people knew this sort of thing was going on but could`t prove it.

[G_j]

50. Great story!

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Those TRAITORS should be hanged!

Do I need a sarcasm thing?




Obviously.

[Paladin]

54. My Facebook is going to be lit up with that sentiment, today.

And it sure as hell won't be sarcasm.

[Faryn Balyncd]

53. (Though civilians), they deserve the Congessional Medal of Honor.

[Luminous Animal]

57. Kick.

[Solly Mack]

58. K&R

[RC]

59. I wonder about the posters here, who have a problem with the people exposing unlawful and

unconstitutional actions by our government.
Why are they defending what are basically renegade agencies, doing much harm to our freedoms and Rights? Where is "We the people..." in their defense of these criminal agencies? I am having a problem seeing it.
"They broke the law and therefore they must pay the price." What if the law itself is unlawful? As with much of what the NSA is currently doing?
Define "National Security". You can bet your definition, and even the legal definition, is way different than those that are profiting, one way or another, from all this government secrecy.

[Savannahmann]

63. One of the principles of the Jury System is Justice

The Jury could declare a defendant not guilty, if the law was unjust, or if it was unjustly applied. But that information is never given to the Jury, they are told by the Judge that if they believe the defendant did the action, they must find him guilty.

If the Jury understood that they could find people not guilty because the law was unjust, and potentially unjustly applied, then the court system would be much better for it IMO.

Because at times, breaking the law is your moral duty. An example, I am walking by a car in July, I see a baby in the car, and the car is locked, with the windows up, engine off. I can keep walking, and pretend that the baby will be fine on a scalding hot July day. I can call 911 and eventually someone might show up and do something. I see the baby is not moving, and I dial 911 and break the window. I've just broken the law, I've broke and entered another persons car. A misdemeanor in Georgia. I reach inside and unlock the doors, I move to the backseat and get the baby out, moving him/her to shade, and starting to take action to cool the baby.

I have committed another crime, I have taken the baby without authorization of the parent/guardian. That is technically kidnapping. But I broke the laws in order to save a life. Part of what is missing from our court system is the motivation of those accused. The why they did something. Because our juries are not told of their right to declare a law unjust, or unjustly applied, they feel compelled to find people guilty who have done nothing wrong, but have technically violated the letter of the law.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

68. That's called a defense of necessity.

You're welcome.

There are a lot of criminal defenses to conduct.

[MADem]

72. A "good samaritan" law, if you will...? nt

[jsr]

66. People who defend the status quo are not part of the solution.

[nilesobek]

84. Maybe they have a dog in the fight.

Or they are a dog in the fight. Yes, their loud and long protestations peppered with indignant right-wingisms, followed up with snide remarks and outright personal attacks do tend to give away their position.

Another worn tactic is to press the label "traitor," very hard while condemning continental allies such as Russia and China as "enemies."

Wish I could be a fly on the wall at a spy meeting concerning DU.

[RC]

85. I've thinking along those lines too.

Who's side are they really on and why are they defending the unlawful excesses of our government? It is obviously more than party loyalty because Obama has a (D) by his name and therefore what they are doing must be all A-OK.

[woo me with science]

89. PROPAGANDA.

[malaise]

67. Geniune heroes

[riderinthestorm]

69. Thrilled to K&R this. More heroes! nt

[WillyT]

70. Thanks... TRUE American Heroes...

[Le Taz Hot]

77. Posted this earlier, but wanted to add here that this story is currently on (free) Hulu

http://www.hulu.com/watch/579516