Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. In
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:21 PM
Jan 2012

\"the charges were brought is that okay with you? \"

...a word, no!

[div class=\"excerpt\"]In July 2007, armed FBI agents raided the homes of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe, the same people who had filed the complaint with the DoD Inspector General in 2002.[24] Binney claims they pointed guns at his wife and himself. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.[28] None of these people were charged with any crimes. In November 2007, there was a raid on Drake\'s residence. His computers, documents, and books were confiscated. He was never charged with giving any sensitive information to anyone; the charge actually brought against him is for \'retaining\' information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e)).[18] The FBI tried to get Roark to testify against Drake; she refused.[28] Reporter Gorman was not contacted by the FBI.[13][19]

Drake initially cooperated with the investigation, telling the FBI about the alleged illegality of the NSA\'s activities.[28] The government created a \'draft indictment\' of Drake, prepared by prosecutor Steven Tyrrell. It listed charges as \"disclosing classified information to a newspaper reporter and for conspiracy\". Diane Roark, Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis (the complainants to the DoD IG in 2002) were also allegedly listed as \"unindicted co-conspirators\".[24] In 2009 a new prosecutor came on the case, William Welch II,[13][28] and changed the indictment. Some charges were removed, as was any naming of \'co-conspirators\'. The new case only contained charges against Drake.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#2007_FBI_raids

\"or does that depend upon who was in the White House at that moment?\"

I suppose the test would have been if the raid had happend on Obama\'s watch. The fact that the Grand Jury indictment happened on Obama\'s watch is every bit as relevant as the fact that the charges were dropped on his watch.

Does this change the fact that the charges were dropped?

Charges were also dropped against Tamm
http://www.openthegovernment.org/node/3089

Bush left a mess, didn\'t he?

Anyone care to tell me that this is not a Police State yet? If it's not, then I don't teddy51 Jan 2012 #1
Don't worry, Obama's got this!! comipinko Jan 2012 #3
Thanks for posting. pmorlan1 Jan 2012 #2
Weren't ProSense Jan 2012 #4
No, it was plead out, largely because of the "threat" comipinko Jan 2012 #5
Point ProSense Jan 2012 #6
Point... SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #7
Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #8
You should make it clear that it was a plea deal, your posts exclude that. comipinko Jan 2012 #10
I see you've met Prosense. Occulus Jan 2012 #42
Point: comipinko Jan 2012 #9
Confusion: ProSense Jan 2012 #12
Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #13
Really? ProSense Jan 2012 #19
Lefty talibans n/t Inuca Jan 2012 #20
Moronic ovine. comipinko Jan 2012 #22
I assume Inuca Jan 2012 #26
I see you've met comipinko. great white snark Jan 2012 #50
I would not have thought that my opinion of you would matter enough to insult you! comipinko Jan 2012 #21
Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #23
again with the delusions of granduer !! comipinko Jan 2012 #24
So ProSense Jan 2012 #28
Now that NDAA has been codified, bvar22 Jan 2012 #16
Don't worry, Obama promised!!!!!! comipinko Jan 2012 #17
the charges were brought CreekDog Jan 2012 #11
seems , to that one, that is ALL that matters. comipinko Jan 2012 #14
In ProSense Jan 2012 #18
Bush left quite a mess, and Obama has just ratified it. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #38
I guess that makes it okay then? Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #27
Did you listen to his speech? He explains that the extent to which the JDPriestly Jan 2012 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author boxman15 Jan 2012 #44
Because the case fell apart. Which is even worse. Not only was he prosecuted, there was sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #39
K & R Cerridwen Jan 2012 #15
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #25
Why should we automatically believe that he is the one in the right? treestar Jan 2012 #29
If you become familiar with this this case you will understand why he should be defended .... Better Believe It Jan 2012 #31
It's long been apparent to "batshit" people like me whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #30
Most important post ever posted on DU. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #32
K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #34
K&R NorthCarolina Jan 2012 #35
This is SO agregeous, I scarcely believe it's really happening. 99th_Monkey Jan 2012 #36
Honored to join the illustrious crowd in the K&R on this story. Too important to drop nt riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #37
Absolutely disgusting. Somebody please tell us why we should vote for Obama again. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #40
K&R....n/t unkachuck Jan 2012 #41
1984 in 2012 n/t datadiva Jan 2012 #43
Emphatic K&R - n/t coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #45
Why aren't any of our elected REPRESENTATIVES like this hero? CoffeeCat Jan 2012 #46
kicking to bookmark barbtries Jan 2012 #47
k&r for exposure. This is significant. n/t Laelth Jan 2012 #48
Damn scarey. lonestarnot Jan 2012 #49
And it's for real. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #51
Thanks for keeping this in our attention. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #52
A case every American should become familiar with. Kaleko Jan 2012 #53
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»U.S. Whistle Blower Threa...»Reply #18