Obama WH loves agressive journalism

[DarrinS]

Abroad

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/the-wh-loves-aggressive-journalism-abroad-todays-qs-for-os-wh-2222012/




(Note: White House press secretary Jay Carney began today’s briefing by praising journalists who have died covering the unrest in Syria: Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik as well as Anthony Shadid.)

TAPPER: The White House keeps praising these journalists who are — who’ve been killed –

CARNEY: I don’t know about “keep” — I think -

TAPPER: You’ve done it, Vice President Biden did it in a statement. How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court?

You’re — currently I think that you’ve invoked it the sixth time, and before the Obama administration, it had only been used three times in history. You’re — this is the sixth time you’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States. The administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States.

CARNEY: Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case, for obvious reasons, and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that.

I think we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring a story of oppression and brutality to the world. I think that is commendable, and it’s certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people.

I — as for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly sensitive classified information, and I think that, you know, those are — divulging or to — divulging that kind of information is a serious issue, and it always has been.

TAPPER: So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?

CARNEY: Well, that’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake, and you know it’s not. Again, I can’t — specific –

TAPPER: That’s what the Justice Department’s doing.

CARNEY: Well, you’re making a judgment about a broad array of cases, and I can’t address those specifically.

TAPPER: It’s also the judgment that a lot of whistleblowers’ organizations and good government groups are making as well.

CARNEY: Not one that I’m going to make.

[ChumpDumper]

Which journalist are they suing?

[Winehole23]

John Kiriakou, most recently.

[Winehole23]

also, Bradley Manning

[Winehole23]

here are the six (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/six-americans-obama-and-holder-charged-under-the-espionage-act-and-one-bonus-whistleblower.html)

[ChumpDumper]

John Kiriakou, most recently.Not for his journalism.

[Winehole23]

true, but Tepper never said so. referred to whistleblowers, I think.

[ChumpDumper]

true, but Tepper never said so. referred to whistleblowers, I think.Kind of apples and oranges. While the Espionage Act might be too blunt of an instrument to be using, the state does have an interest in keeping classified material classified.

[ChumpDumper]

If we were shelling journalists and inducing asthma attacks in them, I'd jump on the bandwagon.

[Winehole23]

the equities cut both ways. the public has an interest in knowing about official fraud, waste and wrongdoing.

[ChumpDumper]

the equities cut both ways. the public has an interest in knowing about official fraud, waste and wrongdoing.Sure, but the devil can be in the details. For example, did they need to know the names of operatives involved in the waterboarding in addition to the fact it was happening?

[Winehole23]

The fact it was happening, yes. (As with any clear crime committed under color of official duties.) The names of operatives, certainly not.

[George Gervin's Afro]

so is darrins pro-msm? or still anti-msm? it's hard to keep up with all of the flip flopping

[DarrinS]

so is darrins pro-msm? or still anti-msm? it's hard to keep up with all of the flip flopping

The MSM carries the water for their messiah. Jake Tapper does not.

[Winehole23]

so then you disagree with the Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers, like Jake Tepper?

[ChumpDumper]

The MSM carries the water for their messiah. Jake Tapper does not.Jake Tapper is a member of the mainstream media.

What the hell is wrong with you idiots?

[johnsmith]

Jake Tapper is a member of the mainstream media.

What the hell is wrong with you idiots?

Chump....it's only mainstream if the individual referring to mainstream actually reads or watches it.......otherwise, it's just media......

duh.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump....it's only mainstream if the individual referring to mainstream actually reads or watches it.......otherwise, it's just media......

duh.:lol


Jake Tapper prints leaflets on a mimeograph machine in his basement and tacks them to bulletin boards in the quad.

[Winehole23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[GSH]

Kind of apples and oranges. While the Espionage Act might be too blunt of an instrument to be using, the state does have an interest in keeping classified material classified.

Yeah, but you can't stretch what this admininstration is doing that far. One of the guys was a whistleblower. The NSA gave a contract to a company to create software (for online monitoring) for $1.2 BILLION. The project could have been completed in-house for $3-5 Million. A whistle-blower told a reporter, and the reporter reported it. Obama's people charged him with espionage. For the record, they eventually found that the whistleblower was right. All they could stick him with was a nuisance charge of improper use of a government computer. But they sent a message to other whistelblowers, didn't they?

When you consider what is tolerated in this country, and the fact that the Espionage Act has only been used 3 times ever to go after reporters, the fact that Obama has used it 6 times seems more than a little suspect. Especially since it appears that they are using it to discourage whistleblowers. Not exactly what he said before he got elected.

One more thing - they have recently caught people smuggling shit out of secure facilities, and done nothing to them. Two of them were strongly associated with countries that are not especially friendly toward the U.S. these days. (i.e. outright spies) No charges of espionage for them. Like it or not, it all says a lot about the priorities of the administration, as well as their willlingness to punish dissent. I don't care what political party you favor, that's not good.

[Winehole23]

I had hopes, but I don't think so now.

[boutons_deux]

As disappointing as Obama is, he can't come anywhere to being as disastrous as dubya with dubya's misgovernment (cocaine whore parties at MMS, Medicare donut hole/Advantage, estate tax cuts) , two bogus/botched wars.

Barry's disappointments are proof that America, even when voting for someone who was supposed to be the anti-dubya/anti-Repug, is really and truly fucked and unfuckable.

[jack sommerset]

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward by your Father who is in heaven"

[ChumpDumper]

Your new schtick is odd.

[ElNono]

"Beware of eating your spaghettis with Alfredo sauce, for then you will get no reward from your pasta father who's in heaven"

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Your new schtick is odd.

Better than his misogynistic patter, tbh, although all western religions are anti-women at the core, so this isn't probably as much a change as a redirection.

[Winehole23]

http://www.thenation.com/article/166757/why-president-obama-keeping-journalist-prison-yemen

[Winehole23]

http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/03/25/abdulelah-haider-shaye-and-anwar-al-awlakis-emails/#more-25935

[Winehole23]

There are numerous travesties defining the ongoing prosecution of accused whistleblower Bradley Manning (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bradley-manning), but none more dangerous than the accusation that by leaking classified information, he "aided and abetted the enemy" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876046/ns/us_news-security) (al-Qaida) - a capital offense. Not even the government claims he intended to help al-Qaida. The theory (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/15/bradley-manning-wikileaks) is that, even though it was not his intent, the information Manning disclosed may end up being of value to the terrorist organization: a claim that applies to virtually every leak of classified information to any media organization, thus transforming standard whistle-blowing into the equivalent of treason.

In late September, I wrote about (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/wikileaks-investigation-enemy) documents obtained from the Air Force relating to an investigation of a systems analyst suspected of communicating with WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks) and Julian Assange. The documents listed the suspected crime as "Communicating With the Enemy" under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice - almost certainly the same theory the government is employing in an attempt to put Bradley Manning in prison for life. I wrote then about why this theory poses such a towering threat to investigative journalism:

"It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy' or 'communicating with the enemy' even if no information is passed directly to the 'enemy' and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it 'indirectly' informs the enemy.

"The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with 'aiding' or 'communicating with the enemy' by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn't that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?"


At Manning's hearing yesterday, the presiding military judge posed exactly this question to the prosecutor, and, as the New York Times itself noted this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/new-evidence-to-be-introduced-against-bradley-manning.html), the judge received the only answer that makes sense:


"Colonel Lind, the judge, asked a prosecutor a hypothetical question: If Private Manning had given the documents to The New York Times rather than to WikiLeaks, would he face the same charges?
"'Yes, ma'am,' said the prosecutor, Capt. Angel Overgaard.

"The New York Times and other mainstream publications published hundreds of the documents Private Manning is accused of leaking. The Justice Department is carrying out an investigation of WikiLeaks to determine whether Mr. Assange or his associates can be charged with a crime.

"Media advocates say such a prosecution would be a dangerous precedent for news organizations like The Times that frequently obtain and publish information the government considers classified."


In other words, the theory being used to prosecute Manning would convert almost every government source for newspapers into a traitor. Given that, it's extraordinary how relatively little interest, let alone opposition, large media outlets have expressed about this prosecution.

Indeed, the New York Times - despite massively benefiting from the leaks (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/04/over-half-2011s-new-york-times-issues-use-wikileaks/37009/) that allegedly came from Manning - had to be shamed (http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/the-times-should-have-a-reporter-at-the-bradley-manning-hearing/) by independent bloggers present in the courtroom and its own Public Editor (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/public-editor/an-empty-seat-in-the-courtroom.html?_r=0) into finally sending a reporter to cover the proceedings (the Guardian, by contrast, has sent a reporter, Ed Pilkington, to cover most of the hearings). The fact that the Obama DOJ is prosecuting one of the NYT's alleged sources (http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/risen_3/) - and threatening to imprison one of that paper's most accomplished investigative journalists, James Risen - makes clear that this threat to journalism is far more real than theoretical. As the New Republic's Eliza Gray wrote (http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110772/bradley-manning-gets-no-love-the-new-york-times) in criticizing the NYT for failing to cover the Manning proceedings:


"[I]f the government pursues the most egregious charge against [Manning] and he is sent to prison for life, his case will go a long way to silencing federal whistleblowers of all stripes, without which, newspapers like the New York Times would suddenly see their source of so much Pulitzer-prize worthy material dry up. For journalists, readers, and lovers of democracy, that's a scary thought."


In order to demonstrate that Manning's leaks aided al-Qaida, the government yesterday said, for the first time, that it intends to introduce "evidence that Osama bin Laden requested and received from a Qaeda member some of the State Department cables and military reports that Private Manning is accused of passing to WikiLeaks." Bin Laden and other al-Qaida members almost certainly had an interest in reading the vast majority of national security leaks over the last decade published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets. The very notion that their mere interest in leaks proves the "aiding and abetting" charge demonstrates just how menacing this theory is.

But let's apply the government's theory in the Manning case to one of the most revered journalists in Washington: Bob Woodward, who has become one of America's richest reporters, if not the richest, by obtaining and publishing classified information far more sensitive than anything WikiLeaks has ever published. For that reason, one of Woodward's most enthusiastic readers was Osama bin Laden, as this 2011 report from AFP demonstrates (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTgYGpDKSrS2SI3HUtXqU_DdZXxA?docId=CNG.a4a97 915e7a9cc058de3c52ecc2a9610.451):


"Al-Qaeda has released a video marking the anniversary of 9/11 which includes a message from its slain leader Osama bin Laden to the American people . . . . He recommended that Americans read the book 'Obama's War' by Bob Woodward which details wrangles over US military decision-making."


If bin Laden's interest in the WikiLeaks cables proves that Manning aided al-Qaida, why isn't bin Laden's enthusaism for Woodward's book proof that Woodwood's leakers - and Woodward himself - are guilty of the same capital offense? This question is even more compelling given that Woodward has repeatedly published some of the nation's most sensitive secrets, including information designated "Top Secret" - unlike WikiLeaks and Manning, which never did.

In 2010, NBC News' Mike Isikoff wrote an excellent article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39693850/ns/us_news-security/t/double-standard-white-house-leak-inquiries/#.UO6RmG_okcY) about Obama's war on whistleblowers that made exactly this point. Writing under the headline "Obama administration cracks down on mid-level leakers, despite high-level officials dishing far more sensitive secrets to Bob Woodward", the long-time Washington reporter wrote:


"In the first 12 pages of his new book, 'Obama's Wars', famed journalist Bob Woodward reveals a wealth of eye-popping details from a highly classified briefing that Mike McConnell, then-director of National Intelligence, gave to President-elect Barack Obama just two days after the November 2008 election.

"Among the disclosures: the code names of previously unknown National Security Agency programs, the existence of a clandestine paramilitary army run by the CIA in Afghanistan, and details of a secret Chinese cyberpenetration of Obama and John McCain campaign computers.

"The contents were so sensitive that McConnell, under orders from President George W. Bush, barred Obama's own transition chief, John Podesta, from sitting in at the briefing, which took place inside a tiny, windowless and secure room known as a SCIP (or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.) . . . .

"The issue: How can they credibly prosecute mid-level bureaucrats and junior military officers for leaking classified information to the press when so many high-level officials have dished far more sensitive secrets to Woodward?"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/manning-prosecution-press-freedom-woodward

[Winehole23]

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou led the team that captured Al Qaeda's logistics specialist Abu Zubaydah, and he is the only CIA agent in any way associated with the agency's torture activities likely to go to jail. And here's the sort of twist that any moviemaker should love: He never tortured anyone. Not only that, but he spoke out publicly against torture. His crime? He leaked information, including the name of an undercover agent, to journalists.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-englelhardt-cia-films-20130110,0,7452697.story

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXkWE3hCsro

[ChumpDumper]

lol RT

[Wild Cobra]

lol RT

They are better than CNN, CBS, and NBC.

[Winehole23]

o rly?

[Winehole23]

At Manning's hearing yesterday, the presiding military judge posed exactly this question to the prosecutor, and, as the New York Times itself noted this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/new-evidence-to-be-introduced-against-bradley-manning.html), the judge received the only answer that makes sense:

"Colonel Lind, the judge, asked a prosecutor a hypothetical question: If Private Manning had given the documents to The New York Times rather than to WikiLeaks, would he face the same charges?

"'Yes, ma'am,' said the prosecutor, Capt. Angel Overgaard.

"The New York Times and other mainstream publications published hundreds of the documents Private Manning is accused of leaking. The Justice Department is carrying out an investigation of WikiLeaks to determine whether Mr. Assange or his associates can be charged with a crime.


"Media advocates say such a prosecution would be a dangerous precedent for news organizations like The Times that frequently obtain and publish information the government considers classified."

In other words, the theory being used to prosecute Manning would convert almost every government source for newspapers into a traitor. Given that, it's extraordinary how relatively little interest, let alone opposition, large media outlets have expressed about this prosecution.


Indeed, the New York Times - despite massively benefiting from the leaks (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/04/over-half-2011s-new-york-times-issues-use-wikileaks/37009/) that allegedly came from Manning - had to be shamed (http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/the-times-should-have-a-reporter-at-the-bradley-manning-hearing/) by independent bloggers present in the courtroom and its own Public Editor (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/public-editor/an-empty-seat-in-the-courtroom.html?_r=0) into finally sending a reporter to cover the proceedings (the Guardian, by contrast, has sent a reporter, Ed Pilkington, to cover most of the hearings). The fact that the Obama DOJ is prosecuting one of the NYT's alleged sources (http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/risen_3/) - and threatening to imprison one of that paper's most accomplished investigative journalists, James Risen - makes clear that this threat to journalism is far more real than theoretical. As the New Republic's Eliza Gray wrote (http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110772/bradley-manning-gets-no-love-the-new-york-times) in criticizing the NYT for failing to cover the Manning proceedings:



"[I]f the government pursues the most egregious charge against [Manning] and he is sent to prison for life, his case will go a long way to silencing federal whistleblowers of all stripes, without which, newspapers like the New York Times would suddenly see their source of so much Pulitzer-prize worthy material dry up. For journalists, readers, and lovers of democracy, that's a scary thought."


In order to demonstrate that Manning's leaks aided al-Qaida, the government yesterday said, for the first time, that it intends to introduce "evidence that Osama bin Laden requested and received from a Qaeda member some of the State Department cables and military reports that Private Manning is accused of passing to WikiLeaks." Bin Laden and other al-Qaida members almost certainly had an interest in reading the vast majority of national security leaks over the last decade published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets. The very notion that their mere interest in leaks proves the "aiding and abetting" charge demonstrates just how menacing this theory is.


But let's apply the government's theory in the Manning case to one of the most revered journalists in Washington: Bob Woodward, who has become one of America's richest reporters, if not the richest, by obtaining and publishing classified information far more sensitive than anything WikiLeaks has ever published. For that reason, one of Woodward's most enthusiastic readers was Osama bin Laden, as this 2011 report from AFP demonstrates (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTgYGpDKSrS2SI3HUtXqU_DdZXxA?docId=CNG.a4a97 915e7a9cc058de3c52ecc2a9610.451):



"Al-Qaeda has released a video marking the anniversary of 9/11 which includes a message from its slain leader Osama bin Laden to the American people . . . . He recommended that Americans read the book 'Obama's War' by Bob Woodward which details wrangles over US military decision-making."


If bin Laden's interest in the WikiLeaks cables proves that Manning aided al-Qaida, why isn't bin Laden's enthusaism for Woodward's book proof that Woodwood's leakers - and Woodward himself - are guilty of the same capital offense? This question is even more compelling given that Woodward has repeatedly published some of the nation's most sensitive secrets, including information designated "Top Secret" - unlike WikiLeaks and Manning, which never did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/manning-prosecution-press-freedom-woodward

[LnGrrrR]

They are better than CNN, CBS, and NBC.

But not Fox eh? ;)

[ChumpDumper]

They are better than CNN, CBS, and NBC.Explain fully this incredibly stupid assertion.

[Winehole23]

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/130723/abdulelah-haider-shaye-imprisoned-yemeni-journalist-reporte

[SA210]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/182902_643513612328075_517531958_n.jpg