An Assault from Obama’s Escalating War on Journalism

[Octafish]

by Norman Solomon
Published on Thursday, May 29, 2014 by Common Dreams

In a memoir published this year, the CIA’s former top legal officer John Rizzo says that on the last day of 2005 a panicky White House tried to figure out how to prevent the distribution of a book by New York Times reporter James Risen. Officials were upset because Risen’s book, State of War, exposed what -- in his words -- “may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA.”

The book told of a bungled CIA attempt to set back Iran’s nuclear program in 2000 by supplying the Iranian government with flawed blueprints for nuclear-bomb design. The CIA’s tactic might have actually aided Iranian nuclear development.

When a bootlegged copy of State of War reached the National Security Council, a frantic meeting convened in the Situation Room, according to Rizzo. “As best anyone could tell, the books were printed in bulk and stacked somewhere in warehouses.” The aspiring censors hit a wall. “We arrived at a rueful consensus: game over as far as any realistic possibility to keep the book, and the classified information in it, from getting out.”

But more than eight years later, the Obama White House is seeking a different form of retribution. The people running the current administration don’t want to pulp the book -- they want to put its author in jail.

The Obama administration is insisting that Risen name his confidential source -- or face imprisonment. Risen says he won’t capitulate.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/29

Remember when Democrats supported freedom of the press?

JFK, addressing the nation's publishers:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

SOURCE: http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3677

The entire speech should be read by anyone who calls themselves a Democrat, believes in democracy, or gives a damn about liberty and the republic. At one time, I actually believed that was all of DU. Seeing how Snowden, Manning and Kiriakou are demonized while Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez seem officially forgiven, I no longer believe that.

Listen to JFK's speech here: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-025-001.aspx

[madfloridian]

1. I remember when an article by Solomon would get lots of attention, lots of views.

But things have changed I guessed.

[Octafish]

4. Here's where it gets interesting...

...when matters of secret government get covered up by the only business PROTECTED by the Constitution, we have an existential problem -- by "we," of course, I mean democracy.

The NSA and the New York Times

World Socialist Web Site
20 May 2014

EXCERPT...

Another Times reporter, James Risen, was contacted by National Security Agency employees about the same illegal domestic surveillance program at around the same time. When Risen put the question of unwarranted spying to Michael Hayden himself, Hayden hung up the phone, confirming Risen’s suspicions.

Hayden put the White House on notice of the impending story. Alberto Gonzalez tells Frontline interviewers that the administration was even considering trying to obtain an injunction against any Times article that would reveal the NSA program, an action which is known as prior restraint of freedom of the press.

The White House fortunately found a willing participant for its crimes in the New York Times’ executive editor Bill Keller, who agreed to a meeting about the matter with the head of the CIA and other officials. Risen was present at the meeting. He was forbidden to write any notes. Risen and the Times’ DC bureau chief both relate a chilling request from the acting CIA director, posed in hypotheticals. To paraphrase,“if we were conducting this type of program, it would be very important and we would ask the Times not to write about it.”

Keller and the other decision-makers assented, burying the story while branding Lichtblau and Risen as insubordinate. Keller has since stated his belief that part of responsible journalism includes deciding which stories not to print. Keller’s decision to keep the story under wraps served the thoroughly reactionary end of keeping the NSA spying program out of the 2004 presidential election. The American people were thus denied the immediate ability to make their feelings known on the program and the administration at the ballot box.

In the meantime, Hayden was promoted and gained more oversight of intelligence gathering. James Risen ultimately threatened to put his draft Times article in book form, crediting Lichtblau and exposing the Times’ utter spinelessness. Under this threat, Keller rushed to the White House to alert them to the impending story, giving the administration time to prepare its defense.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/20/nyti-m20.html

As a lifelong democrat (since my first vote in 1976), this apathy toward a cornerstone of our nation is a sign of grave concern. Anyone who cares about democracy should be very angry about what is being done by the powerful on behalf of the rich and powerful.

Thank you for remembering, madfloridian. The presence of a new breed of DUer has certainly changed the atmosphere, sort of like how "everything changed" after 9-11. Glad to see that you -- and the few who still post -- grok what's going on.

[ancianita]

10. I grok. Thank you for this post.

[truedelphi]

76. Recced the OP. Wish I could rec this post also. n/t

[sabrina 1]

54. Yes, things have changed. One by one every single credible journalist has been slammed HERE on DU

of all places. I take that to mean that those running this country are really, really scared. There must be so much they have to hide that we know already is only the tip of the iceberg. And they only way they can try to prevent us from finding out appears to be to lash out at ANYONE who reveals the truth to the people.

Seems to me that the people are the 'enemy' they fear the most. Maybe it's a good thing that they are so fearful. It means imo, that they can only maintain their power over us so long as they can hide what they are up to.

[madfloridian]

57. I had begun to do a DU search on sources before I posted. Then I stopped.

I decided that anyone I used would be disparaged by someone. Now they are after Valerie Strauss of the WP. It's ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

69. I know, it's ridiculous to say the least. And it only has the opposite effect of what they want.

People simply don't bother discussing anything serious here anymore, because they don't have to there are so many places to do so without the constant nagging and complaining.

[CrispyQ]

70. TPTB know they've taken & taken for so long & the peasants are getting pissed,

but they are so fucking greedy they can't bring themselves to throw us a few crumbs. The way they shut down Occupy but let Bundy do his thing is telling. I don't think there will be revolution in America, but instead we will continue to see our lifestyles decline & people will accept it. Look what we've accepted so far! Our media is so compromised that most people aren't aware how influential it has become at shaping public opinion. It's a depressing mess.

[sabrina 1]

71. Yes, I believe they are very afraid of the people, we appear to be the 'enemy' who must be silenced.

But they couldn't do it if they did not always have factions willing to support them, on both sides.

[villager]

78. He must be long under the bus by now...

And it's quite a steamrollin' bus, 'round these parts...

[KoKo]

2. Recommend...

[Octafish]

11. James Risen: Obama Administration Is 'Greatest Enemy Of Press Freedom' In A Generation

From the Not To Mince Words Department:

New York Times Reporter: Obama Administration Is 'Greatest Enemy Of Press Freedom' In A Generation

Katherine Fung
Huffington Post, March 25, 2014

New York Times reporter James Risen did not mince words in his recent comments about the Obama administration.

Risen is currently fighting a legal battle to avoid having to reveal his sources in court, and his case is one of several in the White House's war on leaks. It's no surprise, then, that at the George Polk Awards' "Sources and Secrets" conference which was hosted by the New York Times on Friday, the reporter called the Obama administration "the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation."

He delivered the opening address at the conference, which focused on the media's struggle with the government over national security reporting. Risen went on to accuse the government of trying to limit what is "accepted" in the field of national security reporting, and said that the media has been "too timid" in its response to the White House. Visit Poynter for more from the conference.

Risen has asked the Supreme Court to hear his case. His comments Friday echoed earlier remarks from the reporter, who has hit out at the government before. Last year, he told an audience at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism that it was time for journalists to “surrender or fight” to maintain the integrity of the press.

SOURCE (w links for those interested in the "Why&quot : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/james-risen-obama-administration-enemy_n_5027083.html

Integrity, KoKo. On DU, they go together.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Letting the people know what their(?) government does is dangerous.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

Thomas Jefferson

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[Enthusiast]

13. +1 an entire shit load.

[Octafish]

16. When a select few get to run things, things will benefit the select few.

An informed citizenry is what was needed to keep the Republic, according to Ben Franklin and the Framers.

So, I don't like it when my fellow citizens and I are prevented from reading the truth on matters of war and peace for 50 years.

The National Security Archive of George Washington University sued for the information on the Gulf of Tonkin Big War LIe's release:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv /

A nice overview for those new to the subject:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=3...

Here's a PDF of the Secret Study on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, written by an NSA historian, most of which was known only to decision makers in the White House, National Security Agency and the Pentagon:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/relea00012.pdf

Who makes money off war?

''Money trumps peace.'' -- George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007

The very words of George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007, uttered at a press conference in which not a single of the callow, cowed press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up. And he laughed.

I remember Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention.

As for Smirko's Poppy, George H.W. Bush told the FBI he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

Who makes money off war since JFK? Gee. Everyone in on the scam, I'd guess.

[woo me with science]

80. Thank you.

[DirkGently]

5. KNR

[Octafish]

20. Top 25 Censored Stories from 2012-2013

From ProjectCensored.org:

The presentation of this year’s Top 25 stories extends the tradition originated by Professor Carl Jensen and his Sonoma State students in 1976, while reflecting how the expansion of the Project to include affiliate faculty and students from campuses across the country and around the world—initiated several years ago as outgoing director Peter Phillips passed the reins to current director Mickey Huff—has made the Project even more diverse and robust. During this year’s cycle, Project Censored reviewed 233 Validated Independent News stories (VINs) representing the collective efforts of 219 college students and 56 professors from 18 college and university campuses that participate in our affiliate program and 13 additional community evaluators.

25. Israel Gave Birth Control to Ethiopian Immigrants Without Their Consent
In January 2013, Israel acknowledged that medical authorities have been giving Ethiopian immigrants long-term birth-control injections, often without their knowledge or consent.

24. Widespread GMO Contamination: Did Monsanto Plant GMOs Before USDA Approval?
Monsanto introduced genetically modified alfalfa in 2003—a full two years before it was deregulated, according to recently released evidence...

23. Transaction Tax Helps Civilize Wall Street and Lower the National Debt
In February 2013, United States senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced a bill to implement a new tax of three basis points (that is, three pennies for every hundred dollars) on most nonconsumer stock trades.

22. Pennsylvania Law Gags Doctors to Protect Big Oil’s “Proprietary Secrets”
In communities affected by hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” people understand that this process of drilling for natural gases puts the environment and their health at risk

21. Monsanto and India’s “Suicide Economy”
Monsanto has a long history of contamination and cover-up and in India another Monsanto cover-up is ongoing

20. Israel Counted Minimum Calorie Needs in Gaza Blockade
Declassified documents reveal that the Israeli military calculated how many calories a typical Gazan would need to survive, in order to determine how much food to supply the Gaza Strip during the 2007–2010 blockade.

19. The Power of Peaceful Revolution in Iceland
After privatization of the national banking sector, private bankers borrowed billions of dollars or (ten times the size of Iceland’s economy), creating a huge economic bubble that doubled housing prices and made a small percentage of the population exceedingly wealthy

18. Fracking Our Food Supply
The effects of hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) on food supply and the environment are slowly emerging

17. The Creative Commons Celebrates Ten Years of Sharing and Cultural Creation
Creative Commons (CC) is celebrating ten years of helping writers, artists, technologists, and other creators share their knowledge and creativity with the world

16. Journalism Under Attack Around the Globe
Journalists are increasingly at risk of being killed or imprisoned for doing their jobs, a situation that imperils press freedom.

15. Food Riots: The New Normal?
Reduced land productivity, combined with elevated oil costs and population growth, threaten a systemic, global food crisis

14. Wireless Technology a Looming Health Crisis
As a multitude of hazardous wireless technologies are deployed in homes, schools, and workplaces, government officials and industry representatives continue to insist on their safety despite growing evidence to the contrary.

13. A Fifth of Americans Go Hungry
An August 2012 Gallup poll showed that 18.2 percent of Americans lacked sufficient money for needed food at least once over the previous year.

12. The US Has Left Iraq with an Epidemic of Cancers and Birth Defects
High levels of lead, mercury, and depleted uranium are believed to be causing birth defects, miscarriages, and cancer for people living in the Iraqi cities of Basra and Fallujah.

11. Bush Blocked Iran Nuclear Deal
According to a former top Iranian negotiator, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, in 2005 Iran offered a deal to the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom that would have made it impossible for Iran to build nuclear weapons.

10. A “Culture of Cruelty” along Mexico–US Border
Migrants crossing the Mexico–US border not only face dangers posed by an unforgiving desert but also abuse at the hands of the US Border Patrol

9. Icelanders Vote to Include Commons in Their Constitution
In October 2012, Icelanders voted in an advisory referendum regarding six proposed policy changes to the 1944 Constitution

8. Bank Interests Inflate Global Prices by 35 to 40 Percent
A stunning thirty-five to forty percent of everything we buy goes to interest.

7. Merchants of Death and Nuclear Weapons
The Physicians for Social Responsibility released a study estimating that one billion people—one-seventh of the human race—could starve over the decade following a single nuclear detonation

6. Billionaires’ Rising Wealth Intensifies Poverty and Inequality
As a direct result of existing financial policies, the world’s one hundred richest people grew to be $241 billion richer in 2012.

5. Hate Groups and Antigovernment Groups on Rise across US
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate groups and antigovernment groups, released a report showing that 1,360 radical, antigovernment “patriot” groups and 321 militias actively operate within the United States

4. Obama’s War on Whistleblowers
Obama signed both the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, expanding whistleblower protections, in November 2012, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) furthering these protections in January 2013

3. Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens a Regime of Corporate Global Governance
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), branded as a trade agreement and negotiated in unprecedented secrecy, is actually an enforceable transfer of sovereignty from nations and their people to foreign corporations.

2. Richest Global 1 Percent Hide Trillions in Tax Havens
The global 1 percent hold twenty-one to thirty-two trillion dollars in offshore havens in order to evade taxes, according to James S. Henry, the former chief economist at the global management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company.

1. Bradley Manning and the Failure of Corporate Media
In February 2013, United States military intelligence analyst Bradley Manning confessed in court to providing vast archives of military and diplomatic files to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, saying he wanted the information to become public “to make the world a better place” and that he hoped to “spark a domestic debate on the role of the military in (US) foreign policy.

Continue Reading…"

(with links-n-details http://www.projectcensored.org/category/top-25-censored-stories-from-2012-2013/


Thank you, DirkGently! Geez the time goes by fast. And to think, some wonder why we need a free press.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

27. Number 19.

That's the one.
Way too few people know about Iceland.

[msanthrope]

6. Risen deserves jail, as did Judith Miller for the same contempt. We should be consistent....

if Miller went to jail, so should Risen.

[Octafish]

17. Who's ''We''? Bush Just-Us put Judith Miller in jail for refusing to name her Plame Affair source.

FWIW: I think Judith Miller's then-employer, The New York Times, should be shut down and its parts confiscated by the Treasury for the crime of printing Judy Miller's lies that sold the illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars on Iraq to the American people. If the "Paper of Record" had done half of what it's supposed to do as envisioned by the First Amendment, the American people would know that the aluminum tubes, intercontinental drones and all the rest of what was printed was just pure propaganda designed to incite a reaction in support of the warmongers.

Don't you remember, msanthrope? From July 2003, when the trail was still fresh...

The Spies Who Pushed for War

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Julian Borger
The Guardian, 17 July 2003

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.
It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses.

This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

CONTINUED...

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

Maybe you don't remember, as the official lying was done on the QT. And now, thanks to looking forward by the government and its toadies like The New York Times, the trail is largely forgotten.

[msanthrope]

21. Absolutely I remember Patrick Fitzgerald properly putting Judith Miller

in jail. And I'm for the equal enforcement of law....Risen deserves jail for contempt, same as Miller.

[ProSense]

22. It's Fitzmas.

Ever notice how Obama is always the "greatest enemy," "most dangerous," or "most scary" President on an issue based on the ongoing hyperbole?

I mean, journalists actually when to jail and were forced to testify during the Bush administration.

Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove

By LORNE MANLY and DAVID JOHNSTON

<...>

Mr. Cooper found himself in front of the grand jury on Wednesday morning, a week after a receiving "an express personal release from my source," sparing him a jail sentence for civil contempt of court. Another reporter facing the same punishment that day, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed after refusing to disclose her source for an article she never wrote.

<...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18rove.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Matthew Cooper Testifies Rove Told Him About Plame

By Laurie Asseo - January 31, 2007

Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified today that top presidential aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell him that an Iraq war critic's wife was a CIA official.

Cooper, testifying in Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby's perjury trial, also contradicted Libby's account of a conversation the two had the following day, on July 12, 2003, about war critic Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.

Libby, 56, Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, is accused of lying to investigators probing whether U.S. officials deliberately leaked Plame's identity to retaliate against Wilson for attacking the administration's Iraq war claims. Prosecutors say Libby falsely told a grand jury that, when Cooper asked about Plame, he said he heard about her from other reporters and didn't know if the information was true.

``I asked what he heard about Wilson's wife'' sending him to Niger to find out if Iraq sought to buy uranium there, Cooper said. ``Mr. Libby said words to the effect of `yeah, I heard that too.'''

<...>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alx7IIe2sXq0&refer=us

Did you support the Plame investigation?

[msanthrope]

24. I totally supported Plame...hell, I remember when Fitz kicked GG's ass.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the scary Black president.

[billhicks76]

37. Obama The Worst?

Only because he's the current president. At the executive level both parties have become just two wings on the same bird and the trajectory is always the same. Down. The next president will be worse regardless of party affiliation if the trend continues. Deals have been made. Power is handed off between agreeing parties that benefit financially from the current war and surveillance profiteering debacle. We need to elect an outsider. I thought we were doing that with Obama but I was wrong. The first evidence of this for me is when he flip-flopped on the Telecom Immunity Bill during his campaign. He not only didn't filibuster as promised but he actually voted for it ensuring mass-scale wiretapping. Every year we inch closer and closer to a fascist, easily controlled oligharcal state that imprisons obscenely large amounts of people because our political leaders at the highest eshelons work for the same tycoons.

[joshcryer]

46. I don't think either deserve jail.

But if we're going to enforce the law I appreciate your view.

Anonymous sources should be sacrosanct.

[msanthrope]

47. Not in a criminal proceeding, josh...my client's 6thA rights to confront witnesses

against them should come first. I am hesitant to grant a new privilege.

[joshcryer]

48. I don't think you can use a third party accusation as evidence.

Jane says John says James killed Judith. Jane's testimony is not admissible as evidence but John's might be. Jane is not a witness. This is why there are shield laws but Miller still went to jail because shield laws are at a state level and don't apply federally.

[msanthrope]

50. ???? Josh..what if my client isn't the source? What if I cannot call the

reporter to the stand to exonerate a client?

[joshcryer]

53. Why wouldn't a reporter do that?

That's one cold hearted reporter!

That would suck. I don't know if you could write a shield law that forces someone to provide testimony to help someone get off.

[msanthrope]

60. Why? Because in exonerating my client, they'd have to reveal the source.

There's no reasonable scenario that provides for the former without demanding the latter.

[joshcryer]

62. But shield laws say they don't have to, not that they can't!

I'm so confused here. It's not like all journalists must, under all circumstances, "not reveal the source." If they don't want to, then they shouldn't have to spend time in jail, if they do, OK, fair enough.

That does leave open the possibility a journalist doesn't reveal their source which could exonerate an accused individual and I'm not sure you can write a law to get around that, but that's not a fault of the law, that'd be a fault of the character of the journalist in question.

I think the bigger problem is that so many independent journalists exist that the state doesn't want people claiming journalistic privilege over small things. Some guy has possession of a substance and his friend was there? "Journalistic privilege." No need to be a witness against your friend.

Frankly, I am OK with that. And yes that expands to other scenarios such as murder and whatnot. If you need a witness to prove a case, then fuck it. There are so many, oh so many, murder cases which were proven wrong because of poor eyewitness testimony. Humans are fallible, so, you know, screw it, if it means giving journalists more protections which may in some cases weaken witness testimony (only in the way that it couldn't be used against a defendant, not against the accuser; assuming decent human behaviors), I am OK with it.

[msanthrope]

63. We don't have shield laws. And frankly, josh, I think shield laws are a bad

idea because the right of the criminal defendant to confront, coupled with the rights of the state to prosecute crime, outweigh any sort of privilege sought.

Why should reporters not have to testify in criminal trials, like the rest of us?

[joshcryer]

65. 5th Ammendment.

The right to say absolutely nothing should completely and utterly trump the force of being compelled to say something. Always. As a criminal defense lawyer you know this.

That's why I say, yeah, it sorta applies to everyone, including independent journalists, but I'm OK with that. The act of saying nothing is not proof of guilt. Period. Instead, an innocent reporter, even granted immunity, saying nothing, means someone gets jail time.

The Federal government doesn't have shield laws, states do (generally with regards to defamation cases and the like; can't fuck over a journalist for revealing defamatory statements against someone and can't force them to reveal their source).

The EFF says it best, though, the vast majority of journalist jail time is due to revelations about national security. I think that is utter bullshit. Some dude revealing a whistle blowers revelations about some local level graft, a few months in jail at most, assuming it even sticks. Someone reveals something about national security, they get years in jail, minimum.

[msanthrope]

67. The 5th doesn't apply, and never has, to a witness testifying about another's actions.

You have no 5th amendment protection as a witness, Josh. And shield laws don't immunize reporters from criminal liability.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

7. US News and World Report article on this.

Apparently, his lawyer thinks it's a good test case of a 1972 decision where the SC held that journalists didn't have a right to withhold sources:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/05/27/supreme-court-james-risen-reporters-rights

Some good info in there re Feinstein's exceptions, which you could easily drive a freight train through, to journalist's privilege to withhold sources.

[Octafish]

26. ''If we don’t stand up now,'' he said, ''it will only get worse.''

I side with the First Amendment on this one, no matter what Scalia and his SCROTUS echoes.

James Risen's First Amendment Battle

The New York Times national security reporter is fighting to protect his promise to a source

February 13, 2014
By Jan Gardner

For six years, New York Times national security reporter James Risen has been fighting to keep his promise of anonymity to a source who told him about a failed CIA initiative.

SNIP...

Risen’s legal battle with the government started in 2006, the year he shared a Pulitzer Prize for a New York Times series on the federal government’s secret domestic eavesdropping program and the year his book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” was published. That book includes details from an anonymous source about the CIA’s failed effort to sabotage Iran’s nuclear research. The government subpoenaed Risen to testify at the trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who had been indicted for espionage. The US Court of Appeals upheld the subpoena.

Risen said there was a series of legal actions through 2008 and it was clear that the judge in the case was waiting to see who was going to be elected president. In the summer of 2009, the judge issued a very brief notice. The grand jury has expired, she said. What she was doing was inviting the Obama administration to quietly drop the case, but it didn’t.

SNIP...

Risen started covering the CIA in 1995 while working for The Los Angeles Times in Washington, D.C. At that time, CIA officials would get upset when journalists confronted them with information they had discovered but they would quickly calm down and help with the story, Risen said. They’d arrange for top officials to flesh out the details. The agreement was that a journalist wouldn’t disclose that CIA officials had helped arrange the interviews. Then the CIA officials would go on TV and say, “I don’t know how the reporter got those interviews.”

Back then, a leak investigation had a whole different meaning from today. Someone at the CIA would tell a government lawyer, “I’m really upset about that story.” The lawyer would send a memo around asking who had talked to the reporter in question. Everyone would say “not me,” and that would be the end of the leak investigation. Even when there were stories that the CIA really disliked, they would never go after journalists, Risen said.

What kind of country have we become where we jail journalists?

[billhicks76]

38. It Will Get Worse

It will get worse guaranteed if we elect a Clinton or a Bush again. The represent the current trajectory downward. We do not want to end up like a Banana Republic but we have so far been headed that way. I personally do not want to be living in a Charles Dickens novel or a 1984 Dystopia.

[DeSwiss]

8. But, but, but..... Obamacare.....CHANGE....

....saved Wall Street from financial disaster.....HOPE. Er, ah.... Nobel!

- You never loved him anyway.....

K&R!

[center][/center]

[bvar22]

14. Your graphic evoked a line from The Rude Pundit's Column yesterday:

"...but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." Snowden threw his body into the gears. "

When you find yourself on the WRONG side of Thoreau, Ellsberg, and The Rude Pundit,
you are standing on the WRONG side of History and Democracy!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025021182

[billhicks76]

39. Snowden Sacrificed

He sacrificed his life for ours period. Those who malign him obviously don't care about our lives. They are the Pontius Pilates and the Pharoughs of our time. They try to reverse reality and tell us up is down, rich is poor, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. To quote Bob Dylan, " they can take the dark out of the nighttime and paint the daytime black."

[Octafish]

31. Conversation With James Risen: Can Journalists Protect Their National Security Sources?

By Dina Rasor, Truthout | Solutions
Wednesday, 23 April 2014 09:45

SNIP...

Unknown to Risen, the Department of Justice was searching his phone, bank and credit card records to make a case against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent who has been charged, under the draconian Espionage Act, with leaking the Iranian bomb story to Risen. Sterling has pleaded not guilty in the case. The DOJ then subpoenaed Risen to force him to testify about his dealings with Sterling. Risen's attorneys won the first round to stop the testimony by claiming that Risen's testimony was not crucial to the case but lost the second round in the courts. The ominous language of the United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion is guaranteed to strike at the heart of any journalist who is protecting a source:

[font color="red"]There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source.[/font color]

Jeffrey Sterling is one of eight people that the DOJ has charged with the Espionage Act for leaking classified government information during the Obama administration. Only three other people have been charged by all the other past presidents combined. This aggressive stand by the Obama administration was a boomerang reaction to a slew of national security leaks, including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Since so much of our national security information has been classified by the national security agencies working to cover their tracks, national security reporting has become on the front lines of this fight between reporter rights and the government prosecution of security leaks.

SNIP...

I am also a veteran of a harrowing legal fight to protect my sources, including facing jail and fines. I also know how much time it takes away from one's reporting and oversight role. Risen agreed; he said this long legal slog has taken up time that he would have been using to continue to examine the national security agencies, and he believes that the continuing pressure for him to testify is part of a chilling effect on his watchdog work.

CONTINUED...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23207-conversation-with-james-risen-can-journalists-protect-their-national-security-sources

[DeSwiss]

51. The courts and this Congress have illegitimated themselves......

...as far as I'm concerned. As long as we continue to abide by their words, nothing will change. Wasting time and effort while they tighten the noose is exactly their prescription. By the time our air supply is about gone, it'll be too late to revolt.

- I had an NDE in 2009, so it's too late to try and scare me......

Look at us. Look at what we've become. Land of the free, my ass.......

[KoKo]

74. Quite Incredible Graphics...Recommend!

[woo me with science]

9. This is the murder of our Constitution and our democratic system.

They are systematically removing every avenue we have to defend ourselves from the corporate fascism that is being constructed around us.

Investigative journalism and a free press are relentlessly, gravely assaulted and are increasingly replaced with a ubiquitous, interactive propaganda machine.

Gathering places online are disrupted and infiltrated by corporate spew.

Mass surveillance and a police state ensure that any real organization for change or resistance can be ended before it even begins.

And they are going after the internet itself....our access to information and ability to communicate with one another.

This is corporate fascism brought to America, advancing rapidly.

[Octafish]

32. Least Transparent Administration Ever: A New Front in Obama’s War on Whistleblowers

By contributors | Mar. 5, 2014 |
Juan Cole / Informed Comment

The Obama administration has just opened a new front in its ongoing war on whistleblowers. It’s taking its case against one man, former Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Air Marshal Robert MacLean, all the way to the Supreme Court. So hold on, because we’re going back down the rabbit hole with the Most Transparent Administration ever.

Despite all the talk by Washington insiders about how whistleblowers like Edward Snowden should work through the system rather than bring their concerns directly into the public sphere, MacLean is living proof of the hell of trying to do so. Through the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wants to use MacLean’s case to further limit what kinds of information can qualify for statutory whistleblowing protections. If the DOJ gets its way, only information that the government thinks is appropriate — a contradiction in terms when it comes to whistleblowing — could be revealed. Such a restriction would gut the legal protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act and have a chilling effect on future acts of conscience.

Having lost its case against MacLean in the lower courts, the DOJ is seeking to win in front of the Supreme Court. If heard by the Supremes — and there’s no guarantee of that — this would represent that body’s first federal whistleblower case of the post-9/11 era. And if it were to rule for the government, even more information about an out-of-control executive branch will disappear under the dark umbrella of “national security.”

On the other hand, should the court rule against the government, or simply turn down the case, whistleblowers like MacLean will secure a little more protection than they’ve had so far in the Obama years. Either way, an important message will be sent at a moment when revelations of government wrongdoing have moved from the status of obscure issue to front-page news.

The issues in the MacLean case — who is entitled to whistleblower protection, what use can be made of retroactive classification to hide previously unclassified information, how many informal classification categories the government can create bureaucratically, and what role the Constitution and the Supreme Court have in all this — are arcane and complex. But stay with me. Understanding the depths to which the government is willing to sink to punish one man who blew the whistle tells us the world about Washington these days and, as they say, the devil is in the details.

CONTINUED...

http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/transparent-administration-whistleblowers.html

Corporate Fascism we may or may not deserve. What We got is something worse: We the People are now the Enemies of Our Own State.

[billhicks76]

40. Best Post Ever

You described what is happening perfectly. Thank you.

[sendero]

64. Just another president..

... exactly like George Bush, who says one thing and does the exact opposite. "Transparent", not in any way shape or form.

And they get away with it because most Americans cannot be bothered to pay any attention to what is going on.

Several posts in this thread reference the idea that we are slipping into fascism. We're not slipping, we are down for the count.

[CrispyQ]

72. Mr. Fish nails it.

[woo me with science]

77. [phone]

They plan well ahead.

[Enthusiast]

12. Jesus Christ!

[Divernan]

15. News is what someone doesn't want you to print:the rest is advertising.

In 1973 Malcolm Moos, the President of the University of Minnesota, spoke at the commencement ceremonies of Notre Dame University. He invoked a partial version of the saying which he credited to a journalist:

Some time ago a very wise and skilled journalist and a member of Parliament in England made the very cogent comment that “news is something somebody does not want you to print.” He also went on to say that “the relation between the politician and newspapers are founded not on sympathy but antipathy.”

And quoting William Randolph Hearst:

It is the job of the Fourth Estate to act as a check and a restraint on the others, to illumine the dark corners of Ministries, to debunk the bureaucrat, to throw often unwelcome light on the measures and motives of our rulers. ‘News’, as Hearst once remarked, ‘is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising’. That job is an essential one and it is bound to be unpopular; indeed, in a democracy, it may be argued that the more unpopular the newspapers are with the politicians the better they are performing their most vital task.

1955 October 29, Time & Tide: The Independent Weekly, Volume 36, The Offensive Against the Fourth Estate by Brian Roberts (Immediate Past President, Institute of Journalists), Start Page 1395, Quote Page 1395, Column 3, Published by Time and Tide, London. (Verified on paper) ↩

[billhicks76]

41. Few Journalists In Major Media

Its all stenographers and PR people. I miss Olbermann and Cenk. They were removed for republican-lite. I like Maddow and Sharpton personally (although what's up with Sharpton being an informant? Yikes) but c'mon. They practically bore me to death tackling the safe minutia like Gov. Christie for weeks on end. Christie is horrible but all they are doing is removing Jeb Bush's main competitor. They are afraid to challenge real power.

[Divernan]

45. I'm proud of the award-winning investigative journo in my family.

He has put the Freedom of Information Act to good use, but tells me that under the Obama administration, the response rate from the govt. to FOIA requests has slowed WAY down, and redactions in materials have gone up a lot.

[billhicks76]

49. So Much For Transparency

Another broken promise. The Stockholm Syndrome is getting ridiculous too.

[CrispyQ]

73. My take on MSNBC.

The liberal media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations who own it.

~bumper sticker

They've seen that there is a market for a liberal slant on reporting & they want to cash in on it, however, since they are basically a conservative corporation, they're censoring the shows by limiting the topics they are allowed to discuss. They probably got the go ahead from TPTB to cut Christie loose.

Just my opinion.

[billhicks76]

75. 100% Correct

And it bleeds into forums like this where the lemmings try to limit what we can even talk about on an internet discussion site. People are followers...so few leaders.

[CrispyQ]

79. Even the 'leaders' aren't leaders.

I think the human species has so much potential, but it seems that the very people who shouldn't be 'leading' are the ones that step up for the job.

There are some occupations that just seem to attract the very people that shouldn't be in those occupations. Law enforcement, management, and politicians come to mind, all positions where someone has power & influence over others.

[obxhead]

18. I'll say it again....

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

He's far more intelligent, but that only makes it more offensive.

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. Sums it up well

We have become the useful idiots, actually believing one side actually fights for us.

[billhicks76]

42. Exactly

Reagan pretended to be bumbling and absent minded. Bush Sr pretended to be a wimp. Bush Jr pretended to be absolutely stupid with a low floor IQ. But these were exaggerated characteristics to excuse their behavior. Now we have a constitutional law professor who forgot about the Bill If Rights and constitutional law? What the hell?

[JDPriestly]

19. Kennedy's voice and speech remind me of the terrible loss that his death inflicted on our country.

Still, I must disagree with him on one issue.

He claimed that the time in which he served -- the 1960s -- was the most dangerous in history.

I was born during WWII. Since I can remember, the leaders of America have either asserted or acted as though the time in which they were lived was the MOST DANGEROUS in our nation's history.

There awe at the task of protecting our country is understandable, even admirable and explains their hyperbole. But they are wrong.

My ancestors came to this country when it was very, very young. They faced dangers that we cannot imagine now. When they later entered Kentucky and Indiana and moved on West, at each watering hole, at each campground, at each settlement, in every home they built on the prairie or in the wilderness, they faced dangers to themselves and our country far greater than any we can imagine today.

They had no internet, no telephones, no electricity or gas. They chopped trees for kindling wood so that they could cook and heat. They lived in log cabins or houses constructed without cranes and bulldozers. They tilled virgin soil. They hammered horseshoes over blazing fires. They created America in the face of dangers we cannot and do not bother to imagine.

They were fearless.

But they valued freedom and eventually fought for the independence of our country and for a new government, a constitutional government that would pioneer a new relationship between the ordinary man and his civil life. It wasn't just a change of the chief of state. It was a change in the relationship between the farmer (we were mostly farmers back then) or the working man and the government. No longer would we have a king, a sovereign, a master. We would be our own king, our own sovereign, our own master. (I'm talking about Yankees who moved from the East to the West, not Southern slaveholders.)

Today, our government, purchased and owned not by us so much any more but by the very, very wealthy (some of whom serve in Congress) and corporations, is seeking to govern us as a master. The first attack is on our right to know the truth about the dangers and opportunities that confront and greet us.

The first attack is on the media including the internet.

Had my grandfather many times removed who first came to this country when there was little civilization here enjoyed the capacity we now have to live safely and tranquilly, had he been able to sit in the evening and watch canned TV shows, old movies or interact with others on the internet, he would have felt incredibly safe, maybe even claustrophobic. He would have believed he had a life of ease.

I think he would have felt very generous toward people in other countries whom we now perceive as enemies. Instead of wasting his time in fear, I think he would have set out to learn more about them. I think he would have tried to outsmart them. And I think he could have done that without quivering in fear.

I think that if my grandfather many times removed were living today, he would want our government to be truly honest with him. And I think he would have been very cautious before he bought a cow from a stranger off the street or the propaganda that now passes for news.

To survive you have to be smart, but you don't have to lie. You can keep secrets, but they had better be your own, not the public's.

And now to the point: Our government keeps too many secrets from us. It doesn't trust us. And I ask myself, what has happened to the dream of my ancestors, the dream they had for this country. Where is the country that is governed by the people, not by a king, or a sovereign or a master? Where is it when the very government that is supposed to be under our control is placing us under surveillance? Where is it when that government tells us that we live in the most dangerous times imaginable?

Our ancestors faced dangers far greater than any dangers we could even imagine save one. And that one danger that is greater than any danger we have faced so far is the danger that the warming oceans and the rising seas and the melting icebergs pose to our grandchildren and their children if they are so fortunate to live to enjoy them. (And we don't hear nearly enough about that real danger.)

The idea that we should allow our government to hide so many secrets that are not specifically combat-related from us because of the dire dangers we face is absurd.

We Americans are the most courageous people on earth. At least we used to be. Every one of us. It's in our DNA.

Very few Americans can boast that they have no ancestors who ventured to this country distancing themselves from the comforts of family and childhood memories to face a mysterious wilderness or at least an unknown future. Even today, although the dangers are less obvious, most immigrants leave behind not just family but very often a career and opportunities in order to allow their children to have a better, freer life.

Ironically, the glory of America, the dream of a better, freer life is now being endangered not by foreign enemies but by our own corporate-owned government snooping on our private lives, negotiating trade agreements that will curtail our rights in secret, keeping all kinds of secrets from us and punishing our press, our media when it tries to inform us.

As I write this, I hope the NSA agent who may now or in the future read my post will realize that what he is doing is downright wrong. We have a right to be a free people. That means free of surveillance. The NSA has placed our thoughts and our speech under surveillance. Law enforcement is supposed to punish illegal actions. It should not concern itself at all with our political expression, our political speech or our personal law-abiding lives.

My ancestors did not want a country in which the government placed the people under surveillance. How do I know? It's in my DNA and the DNA of all Americans: the love of freedom and the courage to accept the risks that accompany it.

If terrorists endanger our country, don't let them come in. Placing Americans under surveillance is not necessary to keep them out. Otherwise, place criminals under surveillance after they have committed criminal acts. But don't place law-abiding citizens under surveillance.

I also would support legislation that would require people who sell information about us that they obtain from the internet to first specifically at each instance ask for our consent. Hey! We might be able to fund universal broadband and guarantee net neutrality in the country with the proceeds from the sale of our personal information. Those who make money from our internet use should help pay for better internet service and help us maintain net neutrality.

[alittlelark]

55. ^^^ This ^^^ ...Thank You

quite 'to the point'.....................

[MannyGoldstein]

56. +1,000

Thank you!

[GeorgeGist]

61. Ironically ...

Native Americans were exterminated to make room for US. How convenient it is to forget.

[JDPriestly]

68. Yes. It does not make us or them any less courageous.

[ProSense]

23. Holder Hints Reporter May Be Spared Jail in Leak

Holder Hints Reporter May Be Spared Jail in Leak


By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. hinted Tuesday that the Justice Department might choose not to jail a New York Times reporter for defying a subpoena forcing him to discuss his confidential sources — even as the Obama administration continues to pursue the right to do so before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Holder made the suggestion in a meeting on Tuesday with a group of journalists he convened to discuss press-freedom issues after an uproar last year over investigative tactics in leak cases. During the discussion, Mr. Holder was asked about the subpoena to the reporter, James Risen, that requires him to testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency official. Prosecutors say Mr. Sterling was a source for a chapter in “State of War,” the book Mr. Risen published in 2006.

No representative from The New York Times attended the meeting. But according to one participant, Mr. Holder said, and an aide allowed to be put on the record, the following: “As long as I’m attorney general, no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail. As long as I’m attorney general, someone who is doing their job is not going to get prosecuted.”

A Justice Department statement describing the meeting said that Mr. Holder was not discussing any particular case.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/us/holder-hints-reporter-may-be-spared-jail-in-leak.html

I know, we'll see. We'll know definitively in two and a half years.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Holder is a most merciful man.

As long as reporters are "doing their job", whatever that is, no hard time.

[G_j]

25. quite remarkable

that there are people who are defending this.
remarkable if they really expect anyone in their right mind to believe they are even remotely "liberal".
This is indefensible.
And of course, now one of our top progressive journalists and writers can be thrown under the bus and villainized.

[billhicks76]

43. They Expect You To Believe It

But people pose as things they are not all the time with other agendas.

[treestar]

28. There is nothing Obama can do to stop journalism

See the first amendment.

In every legal issue the journalist has to win or it is tyranny I see

[struggle4progress]

29. The administration isn't prosecuting Risen under any statute, but Risen may be in contempt of court

for failure to honor a subpoena

[Gravitycollapse]

33. A hilariously weak argument on your part. The subpoena was part of the federal prosecution.

The federal government could have dropped the case and Risen would not have had to resist the subpoena.

Stop apologizing for this administration.

[struggle4progress]

34. Your view is that the government should drop a case because you disapprove of a particular witness

being called?

[Gravitycollapse]

36. Well, alternately, the administration could drop the subpoena. Instead, they renewed it.

I object to the entire case and so should you. The administration has had many options to end this justly and, at every turn, they have demonstrated a will to suppress whistleblowing and the freedom of the press.

We should all be ashamed of the actions of this administration which is colluding to prosecute whistleblowers from the Bush era. You've decided to go full tilt in the other direction.

[struggle4progress]

44. Perhaps nuclear nonproliferation is a legitimate policy objective; perhaps it is important enough

to warrant some secret operations; and perhaps the Stirling prosecution is exactly what it seems to be -- an effort to discourage folk with inside knowledge of such operations from exposing the operations to the world at large

You're certainly free to attempt to persuade folk that Stirling should be regarded as a whistleblower, but it seems to me some careful argument based on actual facts is required, beyond "I object to the entire case"

[struggle4progress]

30. Link to current administration Policy Regarding Obtaining Information From, or Records of,

Members of the News Media; and Regarding Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media
Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014) 10989-10994

[sabrina 1]

52. We were so scammed! n/t

[Wilms]

66. ^