(MintPress) – The Navy SEAL who recently released his first-hand account of the Osama bin Laden killing is being investigated by the United States Department of Defense General Counsel for potentially violating non-disclosure agreements between the military and “Mark Owen,” the SEAL’s pen name. The government’s efforts further illustrate its recent crackdown on leaked information that it deems confidential, which almost always has related to foreign policy and its two long-standing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The investigation started after the book, “No Easy Day,” gave a drastically different account of the events leading up to bin Laden’s death than what the government officially reported. The most debated detail is whether bin Laden was truly armed, which the government has suggested. White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan originally said bin Laden engaged “in a firefight.” The book, however, said bin Laden was unarmed and looking out from around the corner of his bedroom before being shot.
Amidst other details in the book, the U.S. government is basing its investigation off of the “Sensitive Compartmented Information Debriefing Memorandum” that Owen signed upon his departure from the Navy in April. While there has been speculation of Owen’s real name, it has often been withheld from media reports to protect his safety. A senior defense official, who wished to remain anonymous because the investigation is still ongoing, said the Navy SEAL is not immune to investigation and that the Defense Department is taking all leaked information seriously.
“We’ve got to get serious about leaks of classified information,” the official told NBC News. “As unpalatable as it may seem to go after this Navy SEAL, if we do nothing there is no deterrence, nothing to prevent others from doing the same.”
Owen said his book, originally slated for a Sept. 11 release but moved up in light of demand, is not meant to be a political gain for either party ahead of November’s presidential election. Instead, he said, the book should be a reminder of where the U.S. has come since 9/11 and America’s response to the terrorist attacks.
“You know, if these — crazies on either side of the aisle want to make it political, shame on them,” he said. “This is a book about September 11th, and it needs to rest on September 11th — not be brought into the political arena, because this, this has nothing to do with politics.”
Will punishment fit crime?
Owen’s un-official account of arguably the country’s biggest foreign policy action comes during a time when disclosure of sensitive information is oftentimes met with more angst than applaud. Most recently, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning became the poster boy for the crackdown on whistleblowers, being formally charged and accused of the biggest leak of intelligence documents in the military’s history.
Manning has been vilified by some, who argue that he put soldiers in danger with the information he disclosed. Others say he should be lauded as a hero for exposing alleged war crimes, such as the video that depicts a U.S. Apache helicopter shooting down on Iraqi civilians.
Manning could face life in prison if convicted on all counts, with the most serious count being aiding the enemy. But for Owen, it’s unclear whether his allegedly illegal portrayal of the event will land him in the same hot water as Manning. Owen recently received a letter from General Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson saying the Pentagon was considering “all remedies legally available” as a form of punishment.
“In the judgment of the Department of Defense, you are in material breach and violation of the nondisclosure agreements you signed,” the letter to Owen read. “Further public dissemination of your book will aggravate your breach and violation of your agreements.”
Despite saying his book was not meant to be political, it has become a game of politics. Republicans have been relatively quiet when pushing for charges against Owen, possibly because they have already taken issue with the portrayal of SEAL Team 6 by altering the release date of a movie that documents bin Laden’s death until after the election. Republicans also expressed concern that the Obama administration provided filmmakers with improper access to details about the raid, worrying that it would overly dramatize the event.
Owen also expressed mixed feelings about Obama in the book, who was the one ordering the SEAL unit to carry out the mission. The skepticism of Obama plays well into the Republicans’ election efforts in November.
“None of us were huge fans of Obama. We respected him as the commander-in-chief of the military and for giving us the green light on the mission,” Owen wrote.
Thus far, Owen has not been charged or detained by government authorities, which varies greatly from the events surrounding Manning’s case. After being taken into custody by the government, Manning was held in solitary confinement and in conditions that the United Nations (U.N.) deemed tortuous in March. U.N. special rapporteur Juan Mendez investigated the detention of Manning, which included a solitary cell with very little bedding and clothing.
“The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence,” Mendez wrote.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) noted that the U.S. was very quiet about its relationship with Manning, prompting the center to argue that Manning’s trial and detention were being conducted more secretly than those of the 9/11 terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The CCR has lobbied for a public trial of Manning as a way to hold the government accountable for its questionable actions.
“Public scrutiny plays a vital role in government accountability. Media access to the Manning trial proceedings and documents is critical for the transparency on which democratic government and faith in our justice system rests,” CCR director Baher Azmy said. “Portions of the hearings themselves have been open to a small number attorneys and press, but the Manning proceedings have been open in name only.”
The war on information
Intelligence operations have been a bumpy road for the administration of President Barack Obama since the turn of the year. Namely, America’s cyber-war tactics and use of foreign drone strikes with “kill lists” have made the news, oftentimes citing classified documents and internal government sources as means of attaining information.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain was one of the most vocal public figures when details of a sophisticated computer worm called Stuxnet developed by the U.S. and Israel were made public. McCain said the leaks are not only dangerous to revealing national security strategies, but also to further a political agenda during a re-election year.
“Over the past few months, there’s been a disturbing stream of articles in the media. And common among them is that they cite leaked, classified or highly sensitive information,” McCain said of the leak. “One could draw the conclusion from reading these articles that it is an attempt to further the president’s political ambitions for the sake of his re-election.”
But the article that sparked backlash from the government was the revelation that Obama had expanded his use of a “kill list” – a collection of names that the president approved of based on who he perceives as a threat. One security official likened the process to sifting through a collection of terrorist suspect “baseball cards.” Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas Donilon, told the New York Times that the president is responsible for approving drone strikes and has taken the tactic upon himself to dictate how it plays out in each instance.
“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” Donilon said. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world. He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”
As a result of the exposed information, a handful of lawmakers have worked on drafting legislation that would limit who in the government has access to confidential information. In June, a panel of bipartisan lawmakers butted heads with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Justice Department over the possibility of imposing new penalties on individuals who provide sensitive information to the media.
The committee behind the bill has said they would first launch an investigation into various leaks by requesting agencies to provide them with documentation that they feel is already in the hand of the media. The CIA has already said it will not provide such information. Georgia Republican Senator and vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee Saxby Chambliss said efforts to discipline those behind the information leaks will continue, despite a lack of participation.
“There has been just a cascade of leaks coming out of the intelligence community in the last several weeks and months,” Chambliss said. “It’s our clear intention to put a stop to this.”