Last fall, we wrote about how the Obama administration celebrated the signing of what they incorrectly called "free trade agreements" with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These agreements had been the subject of significant controversy, but they did eventually get signed. Of course, the Obama administration -- via the USTR -- has long been a proponent of putting in ridiculous protectionism policies into free trade agreements. To this day, we still can't understand what copyright laws have to do with free trade. They're the opposite of free trade: they're government granted monopolies. We had warned about the excessive language in these agreements when it comes to copyright, and now we're starting to see the impact of that.

President Obama is heading to Colombia this weekend for a summit, and we'd been hearing stories that US officials had been putting tremendous pressure on Colombian officials to pass new, ridiculously draconian copyright laws ahead of that visit. So that's exactly what the Colombian government did -- using an "emergency procedure" to rush through a bad bill that is quite extreme.

Earlier this year, Colombia tried to pass basically the same bill, which was called LesLleras, after Interior Minister German Vargas Lleras (who proposed it). That bill was so extreme that it resulted in SOPA-like protests, following significant concerns raised by the public as well as copyright and free speech experts. So, this time around, the government just claimed it was an emergency and rushed the bill through, despite all of its problems. They seemed to think that the public wouldn't notice -- but they're wrong.

As is typical of idiotic trade agreements pushed via the USTR -- who only seems to listen to Hollywood on these issues -- the copyright bill includes all sorts of draconian enforcement techniques and expansions of existing copyright law, and removal of free speech rights. But what it does not include are any exceptions to copyright law -- the very important tools that even the US Supreme Court admits are the "safety valves" that stop copyright law from being abusive, oppressive and contrary to freedom of speech. Public interest groups in Colombia are planning a Constitutional challenge to this new law, but the process itself is sickening.

To use an "emergency procedure" to pass a highly questionable law that was put in place through equally questionable means and diplomatic pressure -- and to ignore the public at large -- is really astounding. I'm ashamed of my own government for its efforts to pressure Colombia into such undemocratic and anti-free speech actions.

This is getting ridiculous. When President Obama was campaigning and even when he first took office, he claimed that it was a priority to support whistleblowing activities. And yet, as President, he has been ridiculously aggressive in pushing vindictive criminal lawsuits against whistleblowers -- often by abusing the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act is supposed to be used against spies. But the Obama Justice Department has used it over and over again against whistleblowers in a purely vindictive manner. In fact, he's used it to bring charges against whistleblowers more often than every other President combined. This strategy turned out to be a disaster in the Thomas Drake case (which was initiated by President Bush, but continued with strong support by President Obama), where the case completely collapsed, once it became clear that the charges were nothing but a vindictive attack on a whistleblower.

Apparently the Obama administration has not learned its lesson. It has now used the Espionage Act to go after a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding torture regime. This now makes it the sixth Espionage Act prosecution of a whistleblower brought by the Obama administration. All other presidents before him used it a total of 3 times. As the Government Accountability Project notes, the really stunning thing in all of this is that Kiriakou will be the only person prosecuted in relation to the use of waterboarding -- and simply for blowing the whistle on it.

if you torture a prisoner, you will not be held criminally liable, but if you blow the whistle on torture, you risk criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.

Something seems very, very wrong about this.

Apparently, some Hollywood studio execs are so annoyed by the White House's statement against the current drafts of SOPA/PIPA that they're telling the press that they won't donate to President Obama's re-election campaign:

But Hollywood moguls told me they “didn’t know it was going to be as over the top as it was” and took this as a declaration of war. “We just feel very let down by the administration and Obama for not supporting us,” one studio chief explained to me. “At least let him remain neutral and not go against it until we can get the legislation right. But Obama went against it. I’m personally not going to support him anymore and not give a dime anymore,” another movie mogul who’s also a well-known Obama supporter told me this week.

There are many, many more quotes in the article, each one more jaw dropping than the next. Take this one, for example:

“God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests. There’s been no greater supporters of him than we’ve been from the first day and the first fundraisers continuing until he was elected. We all were pleased. And, at its heart institutionally, Hollywood supports the Democrats. Now we need the administration to support us. This is a very important time for Hollywood.

This is yet another tone deaf response from Hollywood, of course. First, it shows exactly what they thought of this whole process: donate enough money and of course they expect the government to pass unnecessary, damaging, protectionist laws that favor the big donors. Making such an admission publicly... that's pretty dumb. Second, it appears they're ignoring the talking points about what a wonderful statement it was... and how it really meant we should just move forward with the current bills (despite the statement saying exactly the opposite).

Either way, these guys are living in denial. The article repeatedly quotes them blaming Google for this... and includes my favorite ridiculous quote of all:

As for other claims, we make 24. We don’t make national security problems.

Let's add back in the key point that this "mogul" missed: You make 24. You don't understand technology. You don't understand internet security. Your pointless desire to stop innovation does create national security problems. Just because you're ignorant of why doesn't change what the law you support would have done.

Either way, what a massive sense of entitlement from those folks from old Hollywood/old politics. When they buy a President, they like their President to stay bought, dammit. They don't want him listening to actual concerns and worrying about the consequences of the quixotic obsessions.

We recently wrote about how it was unlikely that President Obama would veto SOPA/PIPA if they reached his desk, because he probably feels he "needs" the support from Hollywood. As if to underscore that point, apparently he's worried that he's pissed off folks in Hollywood -- who feel that he "has given their causes short shrift since moving into the White House." In order to fix that, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Obama has sent his former top Hollywood fundraiser, Nicole Avant, back to Hollywood to help patch things up there. Apparently, as a thank you for helping raise money in 2008, she'd been given the assignment as the US Ambassador to the Bahamas. But she's left that job to go back to fundraising in Hollywood. One has to imagine that a key "cause" that Hollywood will want assurances on is... SOPA/PIPA. Already, Avant is apparently beginning the fundraising process as part of an attempt to "rekindle at least some of Hollywood enthusiasm for Obama." Of course, Obama is also seeking support from the tech industry, who's almost universally opposed to the bill. Could make for some interesting discussions on his frequent swings through California...

We've discussed the rather disappointing and immensely troubling efforts by the Obama administration, which promised more transparency and encouraged whistleblowing upon taking office, to attack whistleblowers any way it can. As noted, the administration has been using the Espionage Act -- which is supposed to be used against spies -- against whistleblowers, and has done so more often than all previous Presidents combined. Of course, the first big case against a whistleblower, Thomas Drake, completely collapsed.

Now it's come out that a former government official, J. William Leonard, who was in charge of the Information Security Oversight Office was so disturbed by the Thomas Drake case that he filed a formal complaint with both the Justice Department and the NSA and offered to testify on Drake's behalf that "there were no secrets at issue" and that he had never seen "a more deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document."

Leonard held his role during the Bush administration (which was fairly notorious for secret keeping in its own right -- though not to this level). So some may argue that it's purely a political move. But these sorts of roles generally aren't particularly partisan, and even when there are political party differences, this sort of effort is pretty rare.

The fed's ridiculously vindictive legal attack on Thomas Drake for whistleblowing is now basically over. Late Friday, a judge sentenced Drake to 1-year probation and 240 hours of community service. As you may recall, the fed's case against Drake completely fell apart, just as the trial was to get underway, in part due to a lot of press coverage of just how ridiculous the lawsuit was. It was never, as the government implied, about leaking classified information. It was always a vindictive attack on Drake for pointing out massive amounts of waste at the NSA.

In the plea deal that Drake agreed to, prosecutors agreed not to ask for jail time, even though he could have received up to a year in jail (significantly lower than the 3 or so decades he was facing under the original charges). The prosecutors did ask for a $50,000 fine though. And they didn't get it. In fact, the judge scolded prosecutors for the whole case:

Judge Bennett said the government's decision to back away from its case on the eve of trial was "extraordinary," and added that he was particularly troubled by the 2 and ½ year time lapse from when federal agents first searched Mr. Drake's home to when he was charged. "It was not proper. It doesn't pass the smell test," the judge said.

Of course, it didn't pass the smell test because the whole thing smelled rotten. Thankfully, it ended on a somewhat positive note, though it's still ridiculous that Drake received any punishment at all.

In our earlier post about the case against Thomas Drake, I sort of suspected he would eventually take the plea bargain deal, which is why I warned that people shouldn't be upset if he did. And he's now done exactly that, but the details seem reasonable. He rejected two separate plea bargain offers, even ones that likely would have meant no jailtime, if it meant agreeing to things he didn't think were accurate. In the end, the agreement he took involves pleading guilty to unauthorized use of a computer, which could carry a one-year sentence, but prosecutors have agreed that they won't oppose it if he seeks a non-jail sentence.

As I said in the earlier post, as much as it would have been nice to see him fight all the way to the end and totally clear his name, this seems perfectly reasonable. In this way, the key parts of the case -- involving a really awful attempt by the federal government to abuse the Espionage Act to punish a clear whistleblower -- gets totally dumped. And, when you're faced with the potential of 35-years in prison, at some point reality sets in and it's almost crazy not to take a plea bargain that gets you no jail time. Just the fact that he turned down the two earlier plea deals is pretty amazing. In the end, the only way to look at this is that Drake stood up to the government and won. The feds won't get the precedent they wanted for using the Espionage Act against a whistleblower, and plenty of people learned about the ridiculous vindictive prosecution by the federal government.

We've written a few times about the federal government's ridiculous and vindictive attempt to convict Thomas Drake of violating the Espionage Act and put him in jail for 35-years, all because he blew the whistle on some massively wasteful NSA spending.

If you haven't followed the case, Drake was part of a team that helped to develop a system that the NSA could use for its warantless wiretapping program. To prevent the system from being used to wiretap Americans (something the NSA is not supposed to do), the team also built in some protections to block out such taps on Americans. However, after 9/11, the NSA upper management decided to spend billions on a brand new system that would more broadly wiretap pretty much everyone without a warrant and without any such protections. That system was something of a failure and Drake and some others were upset that so much was wasted on such a bad system, when the NSA had a system that worked within the law. As part of being upset, he provided some info to a reporter at the Baltimore Sun concerning the financial failure of the system (but not anything classified about the warrantless wiretapping program itself).

As investigators were seeking to find out a source for a different report (to the NY Times), which did reveal the warrantless wiretapping, they investigated Drake and claimed to have found four "classified" documents that he had mishandled. Even that's misleading. Drake (and a few others) had (properly) filed a complaint with the Inspector General about NSA waste, and were told to keep copies of the report themselves, which included those files. One of the "classified" documents was even stamped "unclassified", but the government argues Drake should have known it was really classified. Other documents were declassified anyway months later. Drake's case is a clear example of a vindictive administration trying to hit back at whistleblowers by abusing the Espionage Act.

And now that case may be falling apart.

Earlier in the week, it was reported that, to avoid revealing secrets at the trial scheduled to begin next week, the government would use a code based on boxes and arrows to try to obfuscate any classified info, leading to complaints from Drake's team that the government seemed to want to hide important information that would help clear Drake. However, the government instead decided not to use that evidence at all, and people are beginning to realize that the entire case is crumbling. In fact, the feds are apparently now desperate to avoid actually going to trial and are offering up all sorts of plea bargains, including the latest: rather than face 10 felonies, Drake could agree to a misdemeanor and get no time in jail.

For someone facing potentially 35 years in jail, I can see how tempting that can be. But Drake has declared that he won't "plea bargain with the truth." It would be nice if he continues to stick up for what he believes is right, but I don't think anyone can rightly complain if he ends up accepting such a plea bargain. Unless you've been on the wrong end of a criminal lawsuit that could put you in jail for 35-years, it's difficult to complain about a guy taking a plea bargain that keeps him out of jail. Still, that doesn't mean we can't hope that he continues to fight this clear abuse of federal power against whistleblowers.

This is just sad. For a president who claimed that he was going to bring a new era of transparency and openness to the White House, every day it seems like President Obama is actually closing off more avenues of communication and being less transparent than any president in history. The latest is an attempt to punish a San Francisco Chronicle reporter for daring to use a mobile phone to record some video of Bradley Manning supporters singing a song in protest when the President was visiting San Francisco. Apparently, the White House didn't like that a "pen and pad" reporter had recorded video and have said that this reporter and paper will be excluded from future events.

They won't give a clear explanation of why, but the implication is that because she went beyond "pen and pad" with the video, she violated some sort of guideline, though the SF Chronicle says no guidelines were violated:

The White House Press Correspondents' Association pool reporting guidelines warn about "no hoarding" of information and also say, "pool reports must be filed before any online story or blog." While uploading her video probably was the best way to file her report, Carla may have technically busted the letter of that law.

But the guidelines also say, "Print poolers can snap pictures or take video. They are not obliged to share these pictures...but can make them available if they so choose."

No matter what, the clear implication is that the administration doesn't like it when reporters show stuff that embarrasses them. For a "transparent" president, and one who claims to have embraced various aspects of social media (as the report notes, this protest happened hours after Obama spent some time at Facebook...), it seems incredibly hypocritical to punish a reporter for embracing new technology and new tools to report on a story.

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) writes "A group awarded Obama for bringing greater transparency to government during the recent Sunshine Week. One hour before the meeting, which was to be open to the press, it was inexplicably postponed. The meeting did take place Monday but was closed to the press while location and schedule were undisclosed. A commenter on one of the sites joked that this must be an Onion article."