State Crimes, Secrecy, Lies & Whistleblowers

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/02/global-angst-over-us-secrecy-fetish/ Global Angst over US Secrecy Fetish December 2, 2015 With the reach of U.S. surveillance now global – and with the U.S. military deployed all over the world – anger at President Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers who disclose the U.S. government’s abuses and crimes has gone international, as this Norwegian opinion piece by Victor Wallis shows. By Victor Wallis The more extreme the crimes of state, the more the state seeks to shroud them in secrecy. The greater the secrecy and the accompanying lies, the more vital becomes the role of whistleblowers – and the more vindictive becomes the state in its pursuit of them. Whistleblowers are people who start out as loyal servants of the state. Their illusions about the state’s supposed moral agenda – and the wholeheartedness of their own patriotic commitment – make them all the more shocked when they discover evidence of the state’s wrongdoing. Given the extreme concentration of weaponry (as well as surveillance capabilities) in the hands of the state, and given the disposition of the state to apply such resources even against nonviolent mass movements, the type of defection practiced by whistleblowers – an option available to military and intelligence operatives at all levels – is crucial to any eventual triumph of popular forces over the ruling class. Whistleblowers thus not only embarrass the government, disrupt its policies, and (assuming adequate diffusion) educate the citizenry; they also are harbingers of a broader crumbling of the capitalist state and the order it defends. Acting largely in isolation and at great risk to themselves, they embody the conviction – or at least the hope – that basic decency has a more universal grounding than does any possible scheme of oppression. Whistleblowing’s principal near-term function is educational. It demonstrates the undemocratic character of the regime whose secrets it lets out; it is thus an essential redient of investigative journalism. The documents it brings to light reach the public through those who practice such journalism, whom the government then threatens with prosecution unless they disclose their sources. The novelty of Wikileaks is that it provided a new form of protection for the anonymity of sources. This, together with the facility of electronic transmission, has made the potential for disclosure greater than ever before. It accounts for the extraordinary fact that the U.S. government has been pursuing draconian charges against someone who not merely is only the recipient rather than the “leaker” of sensitive information, but someone who is not even a citizen or resident of the United States – Julian Assange. Disclosure is particularly embarrassing when it documents the fact that government officials have lied. The Director of Central Intelligence lied under oath to the U.S. Congress – a felony for which he was never prosecuted – when he denied that the National Security Agency monitors the communications of the entire U.S. population. This lie was the culminating event in Edward Snowden’s decision to blow the whistle. As we all know, of course, it is Snowden who was then criminalized by the government. This parallels the experience of John Kiriakou, who publicly confirmed, on the basis of his first-hand knowledge, that the CIA practiced torture by waterboarding. Kiriakou then became the only government official to be prosecuted and imprisoned in connection with CIA and military practices of torture. The debate over whistleblowers reached tens of millions of viewers when the presidential candidates of the Democratic Party were asked (on Oct. 13) their views about Snowden. Hillary Clinton falsely asserted that he could have used established channels to transmit his disclosures of excessive surveillance, presumably at no risk to himself. This claim is refuted by the experience of previous whistleblowers who had taken just that approach. One of them, Thomas Drake, retold his story two days later, at a news conference ignored by most of the corporate media (video), which was organized on behalf of yet another whistleblower, Jeffrey Sterling, who recently began a 42-month prison term on a conviction of “espionage.” What Sterling had done was report to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about a counterproductive CIA attempt (in 2000) to feed misleading technological data to Iranian scientists. What he was prosecuted for was his subsequent conversations with New York Times journalist James Risen, although no evidence was available as to the content of those conversations, since Risen refused to testify. Sterling’s story is recounted in a letter from his wife, seeking presidential clemency from Obama. Sterling had been fired from the CIA in 2002 after filing a complaint against the agency for racial discrimination (an episode on which Risen wrote a news story). After Risen’s book State of War (2006) came out, the FBI raided Sterling’s home, but it was not until more than four years later – under President Obama – that he was arrested (2011). The latest whistleblower, who documents the “normalization of assassination” via drone warfare, is wisely seeking to remain anonymous. The U.S. government will surely take all possible steps to track him down. The work of whistleblowers, as well as their personal safety, is obviously an issue that cuts across national borders. Support for U.S. whistleblowers will need to be as global as the reach of the policies and the weapons that they expose. Victor Wallis is managing editor of the journal Socialism and Democracy. [This is the original text of a column (written on Oct. 20) posted on the Norwegian website radikalportal.no.] https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/02/global-angst-over-us-secrecy-fetish/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT A Canadian archive: http://www.cjfe.org/snowden contains published Snowden documents. Archive also contains US government published documents, as an aid to understanding the leaked documents. It's an archive of approximately 400 documents, which figure presumably also includes the accompanying USG documents, intended as explanatory information. That would be 400 released documents or less, out of an estimated 50,000 documents that were reportedly turned over by whistleblower Snowden. Sitting on almost 50,000 'freed' documents that ought to be in the public domain, seems more like minding an archive of protected (and closed to the public) information  than whistleblower publishing. The 'leaked' information middleman dole-out approach doesn't appeal to me at all. RT News Despite calls from Congress to fire Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for lying under oath, United States President Barack Obama says that the spy chief should have just been a little more careful with his words. Clapper, the 72-year-old retired Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the nation's intelligence departments, caused a commotion last year when he was caught lying during sworn testimony delivered to the Senate. ... Clapper claimed that the National Security Agency does “not wittingly” collect and store data on American people. When former contractor Edward Snowden proved him wrong through leaked NSA documents weeks later, though, Clapper was forced to take back his words. CONTINUED https://www.rt.com/usa/obama-dni-clapper-lie-485/ While on the subject of surveillance etc, I thought this commenter had a point: The Age Paradoxically, if governments weren't illegally monitoring law-abiding citizens then there'd probably be no serious market for encryption - why bother hiding when nobody's looking (at your personal data?) Other than those committing cyber crimes perhaps, who would therefore stand out like the proverbial canine testicles. 'mutt' December 02, 2015, 6:25AM TheAge - here ꕤ

US - SURVEILLANCE & CONSTRAINTS ON PRESS

Pursuit of journalist endangers freedom of the press By Amy Goodman / Syndicated Columnist PUBLISHED: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:02 am The Obama administration’s espionage case against alleged CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling is expected to come to trial soon, six years after he was indicted. In addition to Sterling, also on trial will be a central pillar of our democratic society: press freedom. Federal prosecutors allege that Sterling leaked classified information to New York Times reporter and author James Risen. Risen has written many exposes on national security issues. In one, published in his 2006 book “State of War,” he details a failed CIA operation to deliver faulty nuclear bomb blueprints to the government of Iran, to disrupt its alleged weapons program. Federal prosecutors think Sterling leaked the details to Risen. They want Risen to divulge his source in court, which he has so far refused to do, asserting the First Amendment’s protections of the free press. James Risen has vowed to go to jail rather than “give up everything I believe in.” The role that confidential sources play in investigative journalism was perhaps best popularly demonstrated by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They had a confidential source dubbed “Deep Throat,” who gave them leads, confirmed details and instructed them to “follow the money.” With the help of that source, they uncovered wrongdoing at the highest levels of government that ultimately led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation from office in 1974. At about the same time, revelations about FBI, CIA and NSA misconduct and outright criminality led to congressional investigations that prompted creation of new laws, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was supposed to rein in abuses, requiring a court-issued warrant for surveillance. Then, 9/11 happened, and, as common wisdom now holds, “everything changed.” The administration of George W. Bush initiated a wide spectrum of activities, including torture, kidnapping, warrantless wiretapping and, of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq based on falsified intelligence and a sprawling propaganda initiative, conducted with a largely compliant mass media. These abuses came to light thanks to the work of investigative journalists like James Risen and to whistleblowers who take great risks, personally and professionally, to bring abuses of power to public attention. Risen has taken his case to court, where a federal district judge threw out the subpoena against him. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the subpoena. The U.S. Supreme Court, at the Obama administration’s urging, declined to hear the case. Risen thus has exhausted his legal appeals and will either have to testify in Sterling’s trial or face contempt of court charges, which can include fines and jail time. “As long as I’m attorney general,” Eric Holder promised, “no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail.” If Sterling’s federal prosecutors compel Risen to testify, it’s not clear what Holder’s promise will be worth. One reason the district court judge threw out the subpoena against Risen is that the prosecutors already have a strong case against Sterling, and they don’t need Risen’s confirmation that Sterling was the source. The case against Sterling includes James Risen’s credit-card and bank statements, telephone records and other information allegedly linking the two. Therein lies another profound threat to journalism: the unprecedented level of surveillance of everyone, including journalists. Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union jointly released a report in July, “With Liberty to Monitor All: How Large-Scale U.S. Surveillance is Harming Journalism, Law and American Democracy.” In detailing the negative impacts on journalism by mass surveillance, they quote Brian Ross, chief investigative correspondent for ABC News, who said: “I feel … like somebody in the Mafia. You’ve got to go around with a bag full of quarters and, if you can find a pay phone, use it, or, like drug dealers use, throwaway burner phones. These are all the steps that we have to take to get rid of an electronic trail. To have to take those kind of steps makes journalists feel like we’re criminals and like we’re doing something wrong.” No, investigative journalists are not doing something wrong. The online activist group Roots Action has a petition with over 125,000 signatures to halt legal action against James Risen. A crackdown on the press makes it harder to get information out, ultimately violating the public’s right to know. There is a reason why journalism is protected by the U.S. Constitution: A free press is an essential check and balance, necessary to hold those in power accountable. Journalism is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. http://www.abqjournal.com/446840/opinion/pursuit-of-journalist-endangers-freedom-of-the-press.html

Human Rights Watch - Report

With Liberty to Monitor All
How Large-Scale US Surveillance is Harming Journalism,
Law, and American Democracy 

 - here.


How's this? 

Journalists are unbelievably under the thumb in the US.

I've not read the report but will go back and do so at some stage.

OBAMA - Where's the TRANSPARENCY?

Rift grows between Obama, media as press groups blast administration ‘spin’ Published August 13, 2014 July 16, 2014: President Obama talks in the press briefing room at the White House.Reuters While Congress is on recess and President Obama vacations in Martha's Vineyard, a coalition of free press groups is escalating an already-aggressive campaign against the Obama administration for allegedly freezing out the press and cracking down on reporters. The flood of critical letters and petitions and statements from First Amendment groups marks a new level of tension in a relationship that for years has been deteriorating. Though Obama, as a candidate in 2008, was widely seen to enjoy favorable media treatment, his administration now is fielding accusations that it's one of the least transparent in history. Society of Professional Journalists President David Cuillier, in a statement earlier this week, blasted the administration for what he called "excessive message management and preventing journalists from getting information on behalf of citizens." SPJ is among the groups that's been leading the charge on the issue. Last month, more than three dozen groups, including SPJ, wrote to the White House about what they described as growing censorship throughout federal agencies. [...] ... vowed greater transparency going forward and pointed to several steps the administration has taken: like processing more "freedom of information" requests, declassifying records and releasing information on White House visitors. "Typical spin and response through non-response," Cuillier shot back. He said he hopes the administration is "sincere" about being more open, "but we want action. We are tired of words and evasion." Media groups are gearing up for another confrontation on Thursday, when they plan to present a petition with 100,000 signatures -- backed by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and others -- to the Justice Department. It calls for the administration to halt legal action against New York Times reporter James Risen, who detailed a botched CIA effort during the Clinton administration to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Risen's reporting is at the center of criminal charges against former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling. Federal prosecutors want to force Risen to testify about his sources at Sterling's trial, and the Supreme Court recently refused to get involved in the case. Risen argued he has a right to protect his sources' identity, either under the Constitution or rules governing criminal trials. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., earlier rejected Risen's bid to avoid being forced to testify. At the same time federal prosecutors have fought Risen in court, Attorney General Eric Holder has suggested that the government would not seek to put Risen in jail should he refuse to testify as ordered. But journalist groups want assurances. Risen also is expected to speak during a press conference at the National Press Club on Thursday afternoon. The case follows tension last year surrounding the Justice Department's snooping on Fox News' reporter James Rosen's phone records and emails, and its seizure of AP phone records in the course of leak investigations. The controversy over those actions led to some reforms at the Justice Department. [...] EXTRACT ONLY  - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/13/rift-grows-between-obama-media-as-press-groups-blast-administration-spin/

Hard to believe there's any tension b/w press and government when the mainstream press seems to always carry whatever the official government/corporate line may be (eg Ukraine reporting).

US PRESS - gagged by Obama administration's 'de facto' Official Secrets Act

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation

5:12 PM 03/24/2014 

 

New York Times reporter James Risen

FULL article - Daily Caller - here.

----------------------------------

COMMENT


Reporter James Risen (New York Times) is:

 "currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source" [and has] "warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America."

As for reporting on 'national security intelligence',  by virtue of the Obama administration 'punishing' those that go against 'good' reporting form (as determined by the Whitehouse), and selecting reporters that play the game, the government interferes with the role of the press in a democratic society.

As a result, the government calls the shots and the complaint is that, there's a de facto Official Secrets Act.

Jeffrey Toobin (writer, The New Yorker):

 “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

The government "lawyer for the national intelligence community" doesn't come off as pleasant sounding.

Lawyer's comparing drunk driving to national security reporting:

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

Right, and Big Brother's going to make that decision?

The government is supposed to serve the people; not rule the people.

Someone needs to work on an accepted model of 'national security' versus government accountability.

For some weird reason, the 'risk of accidents' and reporting association made me think of Michael Hastings.
Anyway, you can read the full article on the link supplied.