The Litany of Insanity Rolls Onwards

Daniel Hale [Updated]

If you read one article this week, read Chris Hedges' piece on Daniel Hale's conviction. It is a masterfully woven indictment of the injustice of the USA's Espionage act largely in Hale’s own words. Mr Hedges had, of course, his sights set on this coming injustice.

I posted a comment to the most recent article. So incensed was I it was in my own name, and with a correct email address; a first. Consortium News chose to approve the comment:

A masterly woven piece of writing. Thank you, Mr Hedges.

While I agree with Snowden that a medal is a more correct outcome, I hazard that a better result would be to compel a joint sitting of both houses of parliament at which Hale told the legislators his story. They may even fix the Espionage Act.

In a just world he should instantly be pardoned, have the conviction erased from his record and given an opportunity to write a role in the executive branch for a reasonable salary and be hired to it. This is what one does for heroes.

When will it stop?

I have just published a piece which praised Danny Sjursen, Ben Griffin and Mike Prysner as ex-combat veterans who are or have been prominent members of the pro-peace movement. I am sick and tired of "anti war". It is pro-peace, people. I stated that there are no better voices for the pro-peace movement than former members of the military, and especially those that have been directly involved in killing. They have deep rivers of credibility.

Now I must add a new hero, Mr. Daniel Hale. He, like many others, is tormented by the inhumanity of the actions which the military to which he volunteered forced him to commit. His efforts to salve that pain were to show the people who fund the military what is being done. For that act of salvation, informing the public of what is happening in their name, he is now a convicted criminal. This prosecution is morally reprehensible and damns the executors.

My stock of "screaming blue murder" is deep enough to cover a myriad of targets. Please excuse me, dear reader, as I vent my spleen.

Choosing Targets

Lets start with the USA's Department of Justice and their prosecutor. Some have quipped that the department should be renamed to "Just Us". Ha ha. How about the Department of Vengeance and Protecting the Strong?

Let’s name names. Here are the parties to the court. Hello, Gordon D. Kromberg. Did you not just show up as a written testimony witness in the extradition hearing of Julian Assange? Are you a serial prosecutor of whistleblowers, a bootlicking agent of institutional power, or just a morally compromised weevil?

I'm going to guess the court location and judge: Eastern District of Virginia and Judge Burisma. (Goes to check court docket). Yep, Eastern District, but nope not Burisma, but Liam O'Grady. I don’t like rubbishing Judges, or Magistrates for that matter, for their job is to faithfully enforce the legislation enacted by parliament voted on by the representatives of the people. It is a weighty burden, and in an ideal world the rule of law would be there to protect the weak from the oppression of the strong using a principle known as "equality before the law".

I assume that Judge O'Grady knows the history of Eastern District of Virgina court in prosecuting whistleblowers, and assume that he is committed to upholding the constitution and to effectively carry out his role. I see a few choices. He could come down like a tonne of bricks on the defendant and do a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" act. This does not seem to be his choice. A plea deal for 45 months with possible parole earlier is lenient on a potential 50 odd year sentencing. This is the second choice; perform the role and be lenient. There is a third choice; to refuse to hear the proceedings in protest of the abuse of the court in subverting the constitution. I am neither a lawyer nor judge. Is there not a fourth course whereby the Judge can declare that the law is being misused and push it up to the appellate court? Perhaps Judge O'Grady has actually taken choices two and four by delivering a lenient sentence and including in his judgement avenues for an appeal. I shall grant him the benefit of the doubt. For this law, the Espionage Act of 1917 as amended in 1961 to give it global applicability, is plainly and simply unconstitutional and needs to be put before the Supreme Court to kick the shit out of it. The authors of this law are all 6 feet under and no reputational damage will be inflicted by declaring it downright insane.

Oh, the Legislature. Have there been tabled amendments to the mis-Act? Yes. Do they get any traction? No. Thus, we must focus on the power dynamics. The mis-Act is useful to the Department of Vengeance and crossing the Department of Vengeance is fraught with the risk of vengeance. Amending the mis-Act takes the sort of bravery that we see in ex-combat veterans publicly declaring their voice in the pro-peace movement, very little of which is to be found at the "leadership" level of the USA congress. Shame on you leaderless-leadership. The military have a term for this; dereliction of duty. I add to the charge, cowardice.

Finally, we move to the top dog of the executive branch, the President. She also has three choices, at least. He can do the solemn

the judicial branch must be independent of the executive branch

thing and not influence cases which the Department of Vengeance wishes to prosecute. Following this she can annul, commute or pardon silly things that the DoV does.

There is another wholly different strategy. Imagine that Ms President can see that this continued mis-use of the mis-Act is undermining the very values that the nation proclaims. What could a President do with only the command of the tiny executive branch?

Let us follow the "independence of judiciary and executive" track.

How about identifying a collection of principled journalists and then creating a new position at the DoV, the Espionage Act Czar. The Czar is to review all cases considering being brought by the DoV that will apply the mis-Act, and the DoV is publicly commanded to inform the Czar of all such pending cases. If the case involves a person leaking government information to media which exposes government malfeasance the Czar is to inform the DoV that covering up crimes by the government is in itself a crime as per 28 CFR § 17.22 and thus advise against the prosecution, but rather to have the relevant documents declared as illegally classified and suggest a prosecution for illegal classification. The Czar will have no power to create or prevent any prosecution. It is an advisory role only. If the Espionage Act vs Whistleblower case is to be prosecuted the Czar contacts the journalists and provides every possible public document to said journalists, and the names of people who may know more about the case. If this approach is taken, at the outset parliamentary leaders are to be informed of it and strongly encouraged to fix the mis-Act. The entire process (apart from the names of the journalists) needs be made public. Thus, if and when the DoV continues to undermine the principles upon which the City on the Hill stands, it is not just the DoV but also the congressional leaders who sit deer-in-the-headlights immobile in the cross-hairs of media focus.

Diabolic Designs Done

That the USA is in such a sad state of affairs that the above totally legal but thoroughly underhanded tactics are even considered as a remedy, is woeful.

The mis-Act is a "strict liability" statute meaning that no defendant can speak to the court as to their motivation. Mr Hale had to resort to writing a hand written letter to the Judge to offer words which could not be spoken in court. On his behalf I again cite Code of Federal Regulations 28 CFR § 17.22, part (d).

I claim what I call the “incompetence” clause, the first of the statute:

Information shall not be classified in order to conceal inefficiency

If 8.5 or 9 out of every 10 persons targeted by drone assassination is not the target, to what level of “missing the target” or “collateral murder” (see sources for a reminder) do you need to get to when “inefficiency” comes to bear? We only killed 999 civilians to get the dastardly militant? Is one innocent civilian enough to call into question this extra-judicial killing machine? Where the fuck are the lawyers on this? There is a wide gulf waiting for a new Danny Sheehan to stick it to these megalomaniacal war criminals.

If you are going to prosecute whistleblowers exposing government malfeasance then I wish all shame, nasty tactics and very clever lawyers upon you and your demise.

Sources

Note: Many of the below references are published in multiple locations. I have chosen those which are the easiest to read based on typesetting and font choices of the publishing sites.

The Price of Conscience — Hale Sentenced to 45 Months, Chris Hedges (published at Consortium News and Sheer Post)

Bless the Traitors, Chris Hedges (Consortium News and Sheer Post)

United States v. Hale (1:19-cr-00059), Court Listener

28 CFR § 17.22 - Classification of information; limitations. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute.

See section (d) prohibiting the classification of information "in order to conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; to restrain competition; or to prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security."

Read drone whistleblower Daniel Hale’s riveting letter to judge describing why he ‘came to violate the espionage act’ Kevin Gosztola, but really Daniel Hale (published at The Grayzone and The Dissenter)

Hellicopter Gun Ships killing people for fun and laughing about it. Or, the veterans we love are murdering people in foreign lands while we propose human rights. Or, a turkey shoot with 50’ cal remote weapons. Or, just fucking shoot. ShitTube requires you to prove your age for the most prominent results. I say “treat me like an idiot and I will respond”. Hey, ShitTube you are showing your censorial colors.

“Collateral Murder Wikileaks Iraq”, James Austin channel <— no censorshipish “prove your age” gate, yet:

The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

[Update: new source]

7/30/21 Kevin Gosztola and John Kiriakou on the Sentencing of Drone Whistleblower Daniel Hale, Scott Horton Show, audio file

John Kiriakou was in the court room for the sentencing, and Kevin Gosztola has been meticulously following the case. Kevin reads some of the statements made by Hale in the court. They have a piecing emotional strength. Listen.