Film director Alex Gibney (Creative Commons-licensed Photo by azipaybarah)

Academy Award-winning director Alex Gibney held a special screening for his new documentary, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks, in Washington, DC, on May 21. Gibney also participated in a question and answer session after the film that was moderated by POLITICO‘s Josh Gerstein.

First, the title reinforces widespread perceptions created by the United States government that the WikiLeaks organization is out to “steal” secrets. Gibney has claimed that the title is “ironic.” Actually, the US government steals secrets. Former NSA director Michael Hayden says this in the film, but this aspect of US government operations takes up only a few seconds of the film. He does not explore how US government agencies are actually the ones engaged in stealing so the “irony” does not come through at all.

The opening of the film charts the rise of WikiLeaks—why editor-in-chief Julian Assange was “obsessed” with secrets, how the organization took on bank corruption in Iceland and who worked together to release the “Collateral Murder” video showing a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq. The expansion of the surveillance state after the September 11th attacks and the rise of what William Arkin and Dana Priest explored with their “Top Secret America” project provides a bit of context.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, who provided information to WikiLeaks, is introduced through what he said in his chats with hacker and government informant Adrian Lamo. Lines from the chat are typed across the screen. It becomes apparent that Lamo invited Manning to confide in him.

The film highlights Lamo’s decision to turn Manning into federal authorities, how he was viewed by others in the military, who he was socializing with in Boston, how he considered becoming a woman and some of the mental issues he was confronting while stationed as an intelligence analyst in FOB Hammer in Iraq.

Chat logs, suggestions and descriptions of Manning’s outbursts in the military are not particularly endearing to whatever contribution he has made to global society as a whistleblower, but Gibney never outright suggests that Manning’s mental health issues led him to leak classified information. He does include chat logs that show how Manning challenged the handing over of detainees to the Iraqi Federal Police, who would be tortured, because they had done nothing wrong and were just opponents of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Manning’s arrest and his confinement at Quantico are highlighted as well, with Gibney taking the story of Manning all the way up to his court martial.

In the second half of the film, Gibney broaches the issue of the sexual allegations that Assange has faced. It focuses on what led individuals that had worked with him to become alienated. His personality and ego, according to Gibney, along with a desire to keep his own secrets while trying to force the release of secrets from government and corporations, transform him into a character that drags WikiLeaks downward. And, as the film comes to an end, arguments are introduced that one of the downsides of WikiLeaks for Manning was not being able to communicate with the organization and explain what he was doing so he could not feel isolated. Loneliness is apparently the hallmark of a whistleblower and, as this can make one unstable, WikiLeaks bears some level of responsibility for not being able to comfort Manning.

As someone who has extensively covered the story of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, there are multiple aspects of the film that happen to be misleading, disingenuous or seem to be the product of a director who has an axe to grind.

In the End, Assange Refused to Grant Gibney an Interview

Gibney recounts in the film that he tried “over many months to get an on-camera interview with Assange.” He says, “After meetings and emails, I was finally summoned to the Norfolk mansion for a 6-hour negotiation. But Julian wanted money.” He states that Assange said the market rate for an interview with him was $1 million for an interview or he wanted Gibney to “spy” in his “other interviews and report back to him.”

This makes it seem like Assange demanded $1 million or else he would not appear in the film. As the New York Times noted in a correction, “While [Gibney] says that he rejected the demands, and that the market rate for an interview was $1 million, he does not specifically say that he rejected a demand from Mr. Assange for a $1 million fee for an interview.” Also, the “spying,” according to WikiLeaks, which claims to have a recording of a meeting with Gibney, was a request to inform Assange of any details he might come across related to the United States’ investigation into WikiLeaks.

A “Most Wanted Leaks” list compiled by WikiLeaks is presented as an effort to “bait whistleblowers.” Cast in this manner, audiences might think WikiLeaks was doing something wrong, but WikiLeaks was committing no crime by compiling a list of documents or recordings it thought deserved to be in the public record.

It was not only put together by WikiLeaks. This tweet from May 15, 2009, shows the organization accepted nominations. These apparently came from human rights groups, lawyers, historians, journalists and activists. As highlighted in the film, it reinforces arguments military prosecutors have made that this is evidence the organization “solicits” leaks in order to criminalize the organization. Nothing in the film indicates that Gibney is aware of this.

Gibney made the decision that he would show the allegations against Assange were not ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with that, except the people who speak about the allegations are providing hearsay. He highlights a torn condom that was pictured in a Swedish police report released to the press. What Gibney neglects to mention is “two forensic laboratories were unable to find conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA” on this condom, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

What About All the Questions Around Misconduct by Swedish Police in Handling Sexual Allegations Against Assange?

The misconduct of Swedish police in handling the case does not enter into the film at all, even though this is a prime factor in Assange’s decision to resist being extradited to Sweden. For that information, viewers will have to view the Australian documentary produced by Four Corners called, “Sex, Lies & Julian Assange.” Swedish defense lawyer for Assange, Per Samuelson, appears in the film asking why the Swedish police leaked contents of his interview and confirmed his name to the press when Assange specifically asked that they not do this. He asks why the case was dropped and then reopened.

Gibney incorrectly states in his film that, “Prosecutors permitted Assange to leave Sweden on condition that he reappear for questioning.” When he left Sweden, there would have been no reason why he would have to reappear. According to journalist Andrew Fowler, “On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden. Assange, back in England, would later offer to return within a month. The Swedish Authorities said too late – a second warrant had already been issued for his arrest.” He also fails to note that there is an internationally recognized process that would have allowed the Swedish authorities to interview Assange on the sexual allegations by now so they could decide whether to charge him, but the authorities insist on having him in their custody, which has also factored into Assange’s decision to resist extradition.

In fact, on February 28 of this year, Manning stated in military court:

Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video and the rules of engagement documents I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of ‘ox’ ’office’– at first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I assessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO.

Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never exchanged identifying information. However, I believe the individual was likely Mr. Julian Assange [he pronounced it with three syllables], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or a proxy representative of Mr. Assange and Schmidt.

As the communications transferred from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave ‘office’ and later ‘pressassociation’ the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after the author of a book I read in 2009. [emphasis added]

Manning thought Assange could be using this account to talk to him, but he did not know for certain.

In at least one instance, messages between Manning and Lamo appear on screen and create a conversation for the viewer that never occurred. Lamo types “keep typing <3.” This comes after Manning has poured his heart out, describing personal problems he is having, but this message from Lamo was actually sent because Lamo wanted to know more information after Manning wrote, “Hilary [spc] Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public.”

Bradley Manning’s Supervisor Shares Details Given in Closed Session of Manning’s Article 32 Hearing

Additionally, Gibney managed to interview Spc. Jihrleah Showman, who was a supervisor of Manning when he was stationed at FOB Hammer. She shares details about an incident that did not come out in his Article 32 hearing because the defense convinced the investigative officer to close the hearing.

I was off shift and I had to come in to find something that he should have been able to find, and he was pacing back and forth saying smart comments to me, and I blatantly said: “Manning, how about you fix your shit before you try to fix mine?” And he screamed and punched me in the face, while I was sitting down. My adrenalin immediately hit overload. I stood up, pushed my chair back. He continued to try to fight me but I put him in, you know, what UFC would call ‘guillotine’ and, you know, pulled him on the floor and laid on top of him and pinned his arms, you know, beside his head. At that time, I can’t believe that he’d mess with me. I literally had 15-inch biceps. I was the last person he probably should have punch.

His defense lawyer, David Coombs, argued if the testimony was given in open court it could prejudice Manning. It would have been appropriate to highlight this in the film, especially since in retrospect one wonders if the military approved of her participation in the documentary.

Conclusion

Overall, the film makes the choice to be about the personalities of Assange and Manning rather than a film that truly explores what it has been like for those involved in the release of over a half million documents to be targeted by the most powerful country in the world.

WikiLeaks forced state secrets revealing corruption, crimes, fraud, misconduct, etc, into the open for the world to see, but, rather than telling a lesser known story about the backlash led by the US government against the organization, Gibney opts to highlight Manning’s struggle with his gender identity and how Assange’s egotistical personal battles have been a drag on WikiLeaks, which have been covered extensively by establishment media.

A reporter with the Washington Examiner at the end of the screening said to Gibney she thought the film was “about a lot of awfully troubled people.” She asked Gibney if he learned anything about human nature from making the film because many of the characters in the film all appeared to have personal and psychological issues.

This reaction is likely to be a common one among Americans who see the film. That is unfortunate, because if this is what they walk away with, they are unlikely to appreciate the contributions to humanity that both Manning and WikiLeaks have made. They are not likely to grasp the extent of the secrecy state in America and the nobility of WikiLeaks’ efforts to confront it and continue to operate, even while under a secret grand jury investigation.

WikiLeaks had a tremendous impact on journalism. It has inspired other news organizations to begin to consider how to operate their own leak submission portals. It would have been worthwhile to broach this aspect. Unfortunately, none of this appears in the documentary.

What audiences get instead—from a director who has made excellent documentaries like Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and the Academy Award-winning Taxi to the Dark Side—is an unsatisfactory film that appears to unpack every human flaw of Assange because he would not appear in the documentary. Manning’s story serves to take off the edge created by some of the spitefulness in the sections on Assange, but it is impossible to escape the reality that Gibney wants viewers to see that Assange is much more of a scoundrel than a hero.

Here’s annotated transcript of the documentary.

Photo by The White House (via Flickr)

(update 1 & 2)

Ahead of a major speech on counterterrorism policies tomorrow, the administration of President Barack Obama has officially declassified information related to drone strikes against four American citizens and also acknowledged for the first time that they were killed by the United States.

A letter sent to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by Attorney General Eric Holder reads, “The President has directed me to disclose certain information that until now has been properly classified. You and other members of your Committee have on numerous occasions expressed a particular interest in the Administration’s use of lethal force against US citizens. In light of this fact, I am writing to disclose to you certain information about the number of US citizens who have been killed by US counterterrorism operations outside of areas of active hostilities.”

“Since 2009,” the letter continues, “the United States, in the conduct of US counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one US citizens, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other US citizens who have been killed in such US counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

The letter contains the administration’s justification for the targeted assassination of Awlaki and suggests he is a senior operational leader, however, no proof is provided.

“Al-Aulaqi was a senior operational leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the most dangerous regional affiliate of al Qaeda and a group that has committed numerous terrorist attacks overseas and attempted multiple times to conduct terrorist attacks against the US homeland,” according to the letter. “And al-Aulaqi was not just a senior leader of AQAP – he was the group’s chief of external operations intimately involved in detailed planning and putting in place plots against US persons.”

This contradicts the understanding of former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Joshua Foust, which appear in Jeremy Scahill’s book Dirty Wars. Foust told Scahill he believed members of the intelligence community were “elevating Awlaki’s status based on the fear he was able to inspire through his words.” His statements were not evidence that he had a “senior operational role” in al Qaeda. In AQAP, he was “middle management.” Foust said, “Even AQAP leadership treats him like he’s just a subordinate, who needs to shut up and do what he’s told.”

“Well-connected Yemenis,” who Scahill spoke to, told him that Anwar al-Awlaki was not an operational member of AQAP. Journalist Abdul Rezzaq al Jamal said he “was not a leader in al Qaeda. He did not hold any official post at all.” What united him with al Qaeda was his “hostility to the US.” He agreed with the “vision, rational and strategies” of al Qaeda,” but he did not hold a leadership position.

Nonetheless, the letter from Holder asserts the decision to kill Awlaki had nothing to do with his “words”—statements he was making that the US thought would inspire Muslims to commit terrorist acts. It declares, “It was al-Aulaqi’s actions—and, in particular, his direct personal involvement in the continued planning and execution of terrorist attacks against the US homeland in the continued planning and execution of terrorist attacks against the US homeland.”

…For example, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab—the individual who attempted to blow up an airplane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day 2009—went to Yemen in 2009. al-Aulaqi arranged an introduction via text message. Abdulmutallab told US officials that he stayed at al-Aulaqi’s house for three days, and then spent two weeks at an AQAP training camp. Al-Aulaqi planned a suicide operation for Abdulmutallab, helped Abdulmutallab draft a statement for a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack, and directed him to take down a US airliner. Al-Aulaqi’s last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. Al-Aulaqi also played a key role in the October 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two US-bound cargo planes: he not only helped plan and oversee the plot, but was also directly involved in the details of its execution—to the point that he took part in the development and testing of the explosive devices that were placed on the planes. Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences al-Aulaqi’s involvement in the planning of numerous other plots against US and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed…

According to Jeremy Scahill’s book, Dirty Wars:

…Awlaki’s role in the “underwear plot” was unclear. Awalki later claimed that Abdulmutallab was one of his “students.” Tribal sources in Shabwah told me that al Qaeda operatives reached out to Awlaki to give religious counseling to Abdulumutallab, but that Awlaki was not involved in the plot. While praising the attack, Awlaki said he had not been involved with its conception or planning. “Yes, there was some contact between me and him, but I did not issue a fatwa allowing him ot carry out this operation,” Awlaki told Abdulelah Haider Shaye in an interview for Al Jazeera a few week after the attempted attack…

The letter claims it was not feasible to capture Awlaki and was consistent with law of war principles and Yemeni sovereignty. Awlaki was held in a Yemeni prison at the direction of the United States from mid-2006 to 2007. Yemeni forces have worked with US forces to target AQAP, but the Obama administration has adopted a policy of not working with Yemenis to capture terror suspects because it fears that the government might set them free.

Over two paragraphs describe the legal reviews of which Aulaqi’s targeted assassination was subjected, but it does not change the reality that the administration was acting as judge, jury and executioner. They were engaging in a process of killing by committee and Aulaqi, as well as his father Nasser Al-Awlaki, who tried to challenge his inclusion on a kill list in a court of law, was denied the right to due process. There was no opportunity to rebut the claims of the government before the Obama administration made the decision to use a drone to mete out capital punishment.

There are no details about the circumstances around the deaths of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Samir Khan or Jude Kenan Mohammed. The letter was an opportunity to come clean on what led to Awlaki’s sixteen-year-old son being killed by a drone. The Obama administration chose to continue to conceal the full story of how the US government ended up killing him.

Mohammed’s death is far less known. He traveled to Pakistan around 2008, according to a federal indictment, “to engage in violent jihad.” He was from North Carolina and was accused of “plotting” attacks overseas and securing weapons and training in North Carolina. A friend told WRAL in February 2012 that Mohammed had been killed in a drone strike, but the US government would not confirm it was true.

As with Abdulrahman’s killing, the circumstances around the operation that led to Mohammed’s death is not described. The administration could have come clean fully yet they chose to keep key details secret.

Samir Khan’s death is not addressed either. He is just a part of the “proportionality” of the strike on al-Awlaki, “anticipated collateral damage of an action” that the US would not consider “excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage” of eliminating al-Awlaki.

Finally, the letter from Holder suggests, “The Department of Justice and other departments and agencies have continuall worked with the appropriate oversight committees in the Congress to ensure that those committees are fully informed of the legal basis for our actions,” which could not be further from the truth.

Members of Congress, as Marcy Wheeler has shown, asked to see copies of the legal justification for “targeted killings” at least twenty times. Sen. Ron Wyden said in January in a letter to now-CIA director John Brennan that he had “asked repeatedly over the past two years to see the secret legal opinions that contain the executive branch’s understanding of the President’s authority to kill American citizens in the course of counterterrorism operations.” The Justice Department was unresponsive to his requests.

Holder claims that speeches officials have given in the past couple year, including the address he delivered at Northwestern University in March 2012, were a part of providing an “unprecedented level of transparency into how sensitive counterterrorism operations are conducted.” The truth is that such speeches have been cheap attempts at transparency.

The Obama administration has fought efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights to force transparency. They have argued against disclosing documents containing details on the legal basis for targeting and killing people in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

In fact, the letter does not indicate whether Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) or the CIA was responsible for the deaths of these people. The significance of this, presuming the CIA had a role in the killings of at least one of these Americans, is that it continues a policy of officially refusing to acknowledge that the CIA is actually carrying out drone strikes, which a judge opposed in March, that has helped them conceal key details around drone operations abroad.

This letter is a wholly disingenuous attempt by the Obama administration to make it seem they have a record of transparency on drone operations. It does nothing to allay concerns among those concerned with how the executive claiming the authority to carry out a global assassination policy violates human rights and infringes upon due process and the rule of law. And, instead, the administration regurgitates claims about adhering to the law that have been previously made, without bothering to address key criticism.

Update 

Jeremy Scahill’s statement on Holder’s letter here. He crucially points out, “Perhaps most disturbing about the Attorney General’s letter is that it leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.”

Update 2 

Center for Constitutional Rights’ statement:

The Justice Department’s acknowledgement of what we already know is a welcome step.  But it is only the first step that is needed.  Just as DOJ has now reversed its long-held position that it could not acknowledge these strikes – the position it took in its motion to dismiss our lawsuit – it can and should reverse course on its position against judicial review.  A letter to Congress is no substitute for judicial process.  The government should defend the legality of its actions on the merits in a court of law, including its decision to authorize the strike that resulted in the death of 16-year-old Abdulrahman, about whom Mr. Holder’s letter had almost nothing to say.

This is a small step towards transparency, and we welcome the government’s recognition that it must publicly explain its actions when it decides to kill an American citizen. Much more openness is still needed. The government must disclose its still-secret targeted killing memos so the public can determine if they contain criteria as vague and elastic as its definitions of ‘imminence’ and ‘feasibility of capture…The letter also underscores how little the public still knows about this unlawful program and its consequences, including the previously unknown killing of a fourth American citizen more than a year ago. It does nothing to shed light on the government’s legal criteria and factual basis for the killings of thousands of non-citizens – including reportedly hundreds of civilians – in a program that is unlawful, dangerous, and unwise.

This is the count or specification under one of the charges that the government alleged Manning had committed:

SPECIFICATION 14: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 15 February 2010 and on or about 18 February 2010, having knowingly exceeded authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, to wit: a classified Department of State cable titled “Reykjavik-13″, willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the said information, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 US Code Section 1030(a) (1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

According to Alexa O’Brien, he pled guilty to committing this lesser offense and not guilty to the greater offense on February 28, as follows:

…[G]uilty except the words and figures ’15 February 2010 and 18 February 2010′ substituting therefore the words and figures ’14 February 2010 and 15 February 2010′. Further excepting the words ‘knowingly exceeded authorized access’ substituting therefore the words ‘knowingly accessed’. Further excepting the words, ‘with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 US Code Section 1030(a)(1),’. To the excepted words and figures, not guilty. To the substituted words and figures, guilty.

What that all means is that he did not plead guilty to “exceeding authorized access” or that he had reason to believe the information would be used “to the injury of the united states or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” He did not plead guilty to violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

The government has decided to accept the plea and not make a case that he did commit a violation of CFAA. Essentially, the prosecutors have accepted that he violated military codes, which he took an oath to follow, and are content.

It is unclear why they made this decision, however, for the purposes of context, Manning did address why he decided to release the cable to WikiLeaks in his statement to the court in February. And, he described how he interpreted the contents of the cable (which can be read here):

…It was around this time– in early to mid-January of 2010, that I began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the [WikiLeaks Organization (WLO)] channel discussing an issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland and find out more.

At the time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland’s banks. According to open source reporting much of the public controversy involved the United Kingdom’s use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to freeze Icelandic assets for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that lost money.

Shortly after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.

The cable published on 13 January 2010 was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything… [emphasis added]

Manning went on to add that from his perspective it looked like the US was not “getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so. He decided the cable was important and he might be able to “right a wrong” by having WikiLeaks “publish this document.”

It is impossible to know, but this very well could be a political decision on the part of the government.

In 2011, the FBI went to Iceland to investigate WikiLeaks, particularly Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, who helped WikiLeaks release the “Collateral Murder” video Manning has confessed to disclosing.

Icelandic authorities kicked the FBI out of the country and then lodged a formal protest.

WikiLeaks also recently won a victory in Icelandic court in April when the court decided that a partner of Visa, Valitor, “illegally ended its contract with Wikileaks.” Valitor, the court declared, would be “fined 800,000 Icelandic krona (£4,400) per day if the processing of Wikileaks donations was not re-opened within 15 days.”

Again, whether this has anything bearing on the decision is unknown at the moment. The prosecutor did not share why they had decided not to pursue the greater offense, and it unlikely that the public finds out anytime soon, especially since the reason behind dropping the charge is likely classified.

Photo by Jared Rodriguez released under Creative Commons License

 

]]> http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/government-accepts-bradley-mannings-plea-to-lesser-offense-related-to-disclosure-of-diplomatic-cable/feed/ 13 http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/when-the-justice-department-pursues-national-security-reporters-as-spies/ http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/when-the-justice-department-pursues-national-security-reporters-as-spies/#comments Tue, 21 May 2013 14:28:09 +0000 Kevin Gosztola http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/?p=14907 It has become increasingly well-known that President Barack Obama considers whistleblowers or alleged leakers to be individuals who deserve no protections whatsoever. Recently, with the seizure of the Associated Press’ records and the affidavit showing the Justice Department cast Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation into State Department contractor Stephen Kim, it has become clear that the administration is willing to criminalize journalists in order to bolster their own investigations.

Kim is believed by the government to have disclosed classified information to Rosen about North Korea. The FBI claims to have evidence that Rosen “solicited” information from Kim.

Special Agent Reginald B. Reyes of the FBI declared in an affidavit, “I believe there is probable cause to conclude that the contents of the wire and electronic communications pertaining to SUBJECT ACCOUNT are evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of criminal violations of 18 USC 793(d) (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), and that there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator, to which the materials relate.” [italics added]

The argument that there was probable cause that Rosen violated 793(d)—a section of the Espionage Act—was used to obtain further access to records in Rosen’s email account from Google.

James Goodale, former general counsel of the New York Times, who argued the Pentagon Papers case, would likely find this conclusion to be incorrect. In his book, Fighting for the Press, he points out the government submitted a “memorandum of law” where they argued the Times had violated 793(d). This section is only supposed to apply to government employees.

However, there is another way to think about this legal interpretation: the FBI thinks Rosen made it possible for Kim to commit his crime and, without Rosen’s assistance, he would have never leaked classified information.

The affidavit contains a copy of a May 22, 2009, which Reyes cites as evidence Rosen was trying to “solicit” classified information, which he would have known would be improper to publish.

The email:

…What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors. I want to report authoritatively, and ahead of my competitors, on new initiatives or shifts in US policy, events on the ground in [the Foreign Country], what intelligence is picking up, etc. As possible examples: I’d love to report that the IC sees activity inside [the Foreign Country] suggesting [description of national defense information that is the subject of the intelligence disclosed in the June 2009 article]. I’d love to report on what the hell [a named US diplomat with responsibilities for the Foreign Country] is doing, maybe on the basis of internal memos detailing how the US plans to [take a certain action related to the Foreign Country] (if that is really our goal). I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses about the state of [a particular program within the Foreign Country that was the subject matter of the June 2009 article], about [the leader of the Foreign Country]….In short: Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to do this is to EXPOSE the policy, or what the [Foreign Country] is up to, and the only way to that authoritatively is with EVIDENCE… [italics not added]

Reyes concludes, “The Reporter asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information about the Foreign Country. Indeed, in the May 20, 2009 email, the Reporter solicits from Mr. Kim some of the national defense intelligence information that was later the subject matter of the June 2009 article.” (Yet, the affidavit contains no incontrovertible proof that Kim replied to the email affirmatively by providing intelligence Rosen suggested Kim disclose.)

“The Reporter,” Reyes, adds, “did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.” Also, “much like an intelligence officer would run an clandestine intelligence source, the Reporter instructed Mr. Kim on a covert communications plan.” They used aliases to communicate over email.

Rosen’s tactics seem like that of a spy to Reyes. They appear to add to the suspicion that Rosen was in on the alleged crime. But, is it possible Rosen is engaged in this conduct because the environment for national security reporting has become particularly chilly and he understands he must practice “tradecraft” that protects his sources? Is the government at all to blame for the fact that Rosen believes he must act covertly and not more openly?

Jack Shafer of Reuters published a column that seemed to blame Rosen for ending up in the crosshairs of a government leak investigation. He writes, “Reporters should never depend on the law alone to protect them and their sources from exposure. By observing sound tradecraft in the reporting of such delicate stories, they can keep themselves and their sources from getting buried when digging for a story.”

Journalistic techniques Rosen employed are scrutinized to point out that there are ways he could have avoided being caught. He then concludes by acknowledging the nature of the information obtained by sources that showed the role of the CIA in North Korea. And, he declares:

I have a hard time understanding what purpose Rosen’s scoop served. He appears to have uncovered no wrongdoing by the CIA in North Korea and no dramatic or scandalous change of U.S. policy that’s being concealed from the U.S. public. Boiled to its essence, the story says the U.S. has penetrated North Korean leadership. It’s a story, all right, but I can’t imagine any U.S. news outlet running it without more cause, and I’ll bet that Fox News would take it back today if it could. I doubt that Rosen has committed any crimes against the state, but offenses against common journalistic sense? I’m not so sure.

Indisputably, there is a wide surveillance state that the Justice Department has proven over recent years it will use to increase the likelihood that prosecutions of individuals will be successful. However, Shafer’s column is perversely inverted. It should be directed at power and reflecting on why the government did this to a journalist instead of blaming the victim and pointing out obvious details about how he could have avoided being criminalized.

The larger question should be: should members of the press, from establishment news organizations to independent media organizations to freelancers, have to conduct themselves as spies (or drug dealers) to do their work? Should there be push back against the government for using all manners of surveillance available to pursue reporters?

Journalists and reporters may choose to conduct themselves as spies regardless of what overtures government makes because they do not trust government and because they also believe their sources could be harmed if they do not act in this manner. But, to the extent that it becomes a requirement, there should be concern. The less open journalists are, the easier it may be for the government to justify targeting journalists as criminals.

What Rosen allegedly did is not a crime. Reporters often ask for copies of documents to supplement reporting. But, when reporters act in a clandestine manner, this case shows that the FBI will use that conduct to justify zealously pursuing a journalist to bolster a Justice Department case.

Photo by Aramil Liadon released under Creative Commons License

 

]]> http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/when-the-justice-department-pursues-national-security-reporters-as-spies/feed/ 11 http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/bradley-mannings-final-pretrial-hearing-day-1/ http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/bradley-mannings-final-pretrial-hearing-day-1/#comments Tue, 21 May 2013 13:47:36 +0000 Kevin Gosztola http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/?p=14910 2:55 PM EST That does it. Thanks for following. June 3 – trial begins.

2:50 PM EST A number of the witnesses testifying in secret will be testifying to Specifications 12 & 13, counts related to the disclosure of US diplomatic cables. Up to this point, the State Department has exercised incredible control over the information going above and beyond to ensure the public does not get to know too much about why they did not want information disclosed to the public or even why the defense did not have a right to use that evidence in their arguments during the court martial.

2:49 PM EST It was Don Yamamoto, Acting Assistant Secretary for African Affairs for the State Department, was the witness who the government produced for the “dry run” session on May 8. The judge’s ruling indicated there had been one “spillage” of classified information during the “dry run.” She stated in her ruling that the “dry run” demonstrated it was “not possible to elicit coherently nuanced” testimony on classified information in open court. The silent witness rule or codes or legends not available to the public would not work. The court would have difficulty understanding what was said and it would place a burden on the witness that could cause the witness to fumble and spill classified information.

2:47 PM EST The government submitted reviews to the judge that she said in her ruling showed serious harm to national security could be caused to foreign relations and intelligence activities if portions of the proceedings were not closed for 24 witnesses.

2:40 PM EST In the judge’s decision on closing portions of the trial, the judge said there was concern about the public “being able to connect the dots and figure out” what classified information was being discussed. This is the mosaic theory, that alone the information disclosed might not be entirely understandable to the public but because information Manning disclosed is available to the public they could figure out what was being said and that would pose risks.

2:35 PM EST The judge ordered the “expeditious” production of transcripts of closed sessions so unclassified portions of testimony can be released to the public.

Legal matter expert giving briefing to press pool calls this “unusual.” The expert explains, because alternatives did not work, to protect public’s right, a transcript will be turned over to original classification authorities. Classified information will be censored or blacked out. Anything in between the black will be released for the public to read.

2:33 PM EST The judge issued a ruling that there are “no alternatives to closure for presentation of classified evidence from 24 witnesses.” She said she balanced the Sixth Amendment right of the accused against the First Amendment right of the public against national security interests of the United States and national security interests override “any miscarriage of justice that could take place during the closed sessions of this court martial.”

2:30 PM EST Pretrial hearing concludes. Going to trial and that begins June 3.

12:55 PM EST The biggest news so far is that the government will not be pursuing the greater offense charged for disclosing diplomatic cable, “10Reykjavik13.” Here’s a report on this development.

12:45 PM EST Sequester: Already this has had an impact. The trial cannot convene on the weekends because of budget cuts. Furloughs are also going to have an impact on a dozen people directly involved in the trial—from public affairs to defense affairs experts to court reporters. Military employees are not subject to furloughs.

The government, defense and judge are working out how to handle this so it does not disrupt the trial too much.

11:45 AM EST Judge Army Col. Denise Lind was especially concerned about argument over the content of US diplomatic cables. She said she was concerned Manning’s trial could “devolve into many trials regarding international politics in many regions of the world.” Argument would be allowed but she said she would be ensuring argument was brief, limited and focused on the contents and she would not hesitate to try and exclude evidence if she found it necessary.

11:40 AM EST The judge read a ruling with regards to what evidence on the contents and circumstances of the information, prospective damage that could have been caused to the US on the date of release and defense rebuttals to testimony would be relevant.

She essentially found this sort of information would be relevant to to proving he had violated 793e, a section of the Espionage Act, and related to the national defense. Also, she found it it was relevant to whether the information he is charged with disclosing was intelligence that was “true or at least in part” and the value element of violations of a federal larceny statute, as well as the charges that allege he engaged in conduct that was “service discrediting” to the military.

UPDATE – 11:00 AM EST The government will not be pursuing the greater offense related to Manning’s disclosure of a diplomatic cable from the US embassy Reykjavik, Iceland. He pled guilty to lesser offense included in the specification of the charge on February 28.

Creative Commons-licensed Photo by savebradley

Original Post

A final pretrial hearing in the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning is being held today at Fort Meade in Maryland. Decisions on how to handle testimony from classified witnesses during the trial, which begins on June 3, are expected.

The hearing was previously scheduled to go until Friday, May 24, however, a legal matter expert from the military suggests the hearing could conclude this afternoon.

Military judge Army Col. Denise Lind opened court and said a closed session was necessary on May 7. A “dry run” was held where the judge explored how to keep proceedings as open as possible. Several iterations of cross-examination were conducted to see how much information could be elicited without spilling classified information.

Manning has access to classified discovery evidence. He was present during the “dry run” session. As the accused, he should be able to see all evidence against him and remain present during all closed sessions of the trial.

While these changes may not have any implications for Manning’s trial, the press was given notice that the military rules of evidence (MRE) were recently amended on May 15. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, whenever there is a change in federal rules of evidence, changes are made so they remain consist with federal rules.

Search and seizure rules, confessions and admissions rules and Miranda rights rules were amended. There were adjustments to who can make classification decisions with regards to turning over classified evidence and how to request ex parte reviews (reviewing evidence for one party alone). There could be discussion this afternoon or in the morning about what impact this might have.

Deliberation over defense witnesses Ambassador Peter Galbraith, Professor Yochai Benkler and Col. Morris Davis. Specifically, discussion could involve efforts to obtain or update security clearances for each of them.

*

I am in the media center at Fort Meade. There is a good amount of press here: The Washington Post, Associated Press, The Guardian, Courthouse News, Al Jazeera English, Agence France Presse, Huffington Post, Alexa O’Brien, Nathan Fuller of the Bradley Manning Support Network and a few others who I do not know. Clark Stoeckley is here doing sketches.

Look for updates on Twitter at @kgosztola and at the top of this post throughout the day.

 

]]> http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/21/bradley-mannings-final-pretrial-hearing-day-1/feed/ 47 http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/20/fox-news-journalist-pursued-by-obama-justice-department-as-co-conspirator-in-leak/ http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/20/fox-news-journalist-pursued-by-obama-justice-department-as-co-conspirator-in-leak/#comments Mon, 20 May 2013 15:33:59 +0000 Kevin Gosztola http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/?p=14900 The extent of the administration of President Barack Obama’s attacks on the First Amendment has been confirmed to include having the Justice Department pursue a Fox News journalist as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation.

The investigation involves Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department employee, who has been under investigation for possibly leaking classified information on North Korea to Fox News reporter James Rosen.

The Washington Post characterizes the case as one that “bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press.” Except, it is worse.

The FBI conducted extensive surveillance of Rosen:

They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails.

An affidavit apparently indicates that Rosen communicated to Kim, “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” Also, “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

Not only did investigators seize “two days’ worth of Rosen’s personal emails—and all of his email exchanges with Kim,” but they managed to convince a federal judge he could be a “co-conspirator.” As the judge was convinced there was “probable cause” he had broken “the law against unauthorized leaks,” the judge approved a search warrant.

But, as the Post notes, “It remains an open question whether it’s ever illegal, given the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.”

This is but another example of how the Obama administration is, as I thoroughly detailed last week, chilling the news gathering process through its actions. It may be even more zealous than the pursuit of New York Times reporter James Risen’s sources because it suggests journalists do not only have to fear being forced to give up their sources but could also be criminalized for “conspiring” with their source. (Risen won in court, but the Obama Justice Department appealed.)

If the Justice Department was willing to make this claim about a Fox News reporter in court to get to records that could bolster their case against Kim, there should be no doubt that they have used the same claims about WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange and its staffers to strengthen their case against Pfc. Bradley Manning but to also construct innovative cases against WikiLeaks that could be employed in defense of secrecy and the national security state.

Furthermore, there should be no confusion. The perverse decision by the Obama administration to back a re-introduced version of a media shield law has a broad national security exception. And, James Goodale, the former counsel to the Times, says:

I think if that shield law were passed it would reverse the victory James Risen won which permitted him not to disclose national security information leaked to him by Jeffrey Sterling. Without taking up more time than I have, the bottom line on Obama’s suggestion to reintroduce the shield law is that it is a snare and delusion.

The Obama administration considers shielding the national security state to be a higher priority than protecting freedom of the press. No one should be dissuaded otherwise because the administration’s record shows this is the case.

Photo by DonkeyHotey released under Creative Commons License

 

]]> http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/20/fox-news-journalist-pursued-by-obama-justice-department-as-co-conspirator-in-leak/feed/ 24 http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/19/review-star-trek-into-darkness-mirrors-present-where-us-has-transformed-world-into-battlefield/ http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/19/review-star-trek-into-darkness-mirrors-present-where-us-has-transformed-world-into-battlefield/#comments Mon, 20 May 2013 00:59:47 +0000 Kevin Gosztola http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/?p=14889

The following review contains spoilers, as that is the only way to discuss how the film reflects contemporary realities. 

Gene Roddenberry, when he developed Star Trek, acknowledged that he created a “new world with new rules,” which he could use to examine contemporary issues in society. Director J.J Abrams and the writers of the latest film in the franchise, Star Trek: Into Darkness, appear to have decided to honor the spirit of Roddenberry by drawing upon the pressing societal issue of militarization.

On the planet Nbiru, the crew of the USS Enterprise is on a mission to observe a primitive civilization. First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) ends up being endangered by an exploding volcano and Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) decides to violate the Prime Directive, a principle that dictates the Federation will not interfere with the alien civilizations which they discover or observe.

The violation compels Spock to submit a report to Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) informing him that, even though Kirk saved his life, the Prime Directive was violated. This results in a demotion for Kirk and Pike reassumes command of the Enterprise. However, Pike wants him to still be an officer in his crew.

An act of domestic terrorism occurs against a secret installation. The suspected terrorist is believed to be one of their own, John T. Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Kirk and Pike attend an emergency meeting at Starfleet headquarters. He apparently blew up a library archive, but why? Just as Pike is discovering why he would have wanted to explode an archive, the headquarters comes under attack from Harrison. He knew they would call an emergency meeting and wanted to eliminate high-ranking officers in the command.

Harrison flees to Kronos, the Klingon home world. Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) orders Kirk to lead an operation to target and kill Harrison with a new kind of photon torpedo. He acknowledges this could start a war with the Klingons, but he believes war is inevitable, an allusion to how President George W. Bush was willing to exploit the 9/11 terror attacks to go to war in Iraq.

Spock opposes assassinating Harrison with photon torpedoes, as it would be depriving Harrison of life without charge or trial. He also argues extrajudicially killing Harrison would be a violation of Kronos’ sovereignty. Kirk was ordered to kill Harrison when they got to Kronos. Ultimately, against the order of Marcus, he leads a team to capture Harrison alive.

Aboard the Enterprise, Harrison reveals his true identity. He is a superhuman named Khan, who was genetically-engineered. Marcus woke him up from a 300-year cryogenic sleep to take advantage of his savagery and have him develop weapons to aid in war against the Klingons. And, the photon torpedoes actually contained 72 cryogenically frozen colleagues that would have died if they were all fired upon Khan.

Marcus wanted to weaponize Starfleet and approach the universe as if it was a battlefield. The Federation’s purpose, however, had been to keep peace and not start wars.

A central theme is militarization. In fact, at the end of the film, Kirk delivers a speech where he warns fellow officers in the Starfleet that they should all be wary of the thirst for revenge and awakening evil within themselves.

The classic line, “Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before,” directly repudiate the direction that Marcus wanted to take Starfleet.

As Roberto Orci, one of the writers told the Wall Street Journal, “The original Star Trek mirrored the Civil Rights movement. It mirrored some progressive ideas that were not exactly popular at the time, like relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War as represented by having a Russian officer. We felt that Star Trek was always embedded in its best forms in the world that we live in. The world that we happen to currently live in involves issues of terrorism and of war and of sovereignty. So surely recent events and the things happening in the century were part of our calculus.”

In other words, the elements of the movie that seem to comment on war and sovereignty are, while subtle, intended to explore such issues. (There’s even a message before the credits that pays tribute to post-9/11 veterans, which could be considered an injection of reality into the story world.)

It stands in sharp contrast to the recent film, Zero Dark Thirty, which celebrated vigilantism and policies in the war on terrorism that have transformed the world into a battlefield. Those on the raid to kill Osama bin Laden show little restraint in killing people in bin Laden’s compound, who have not fired any weapons at them. They are not careful in making sure bin Laden is captured alive. In fact, the team is very pleased that a bullet hit him in the head and he was killed.

The capture of Khan has a value in the film. The crew would not have found out about the threat Marcus posed to them if they had not taken him on board.

The above only speaks to the tie-in with how the film reflects on our time. It does not delve into all the homages to previous entries in the Star Trek franchise. However, the effort undertaken to speak to current issues of the day could be an homage to Star Trek in and of itself.

Quinto said on “Real Time w/ Bill Maher,” “Roddenberry really believed ultimately in humanity and with a lot of faith and optimism, but the stories always reflected the society in which they took place. So, he was really allegorically tackling a lot of social issues in the ’60s that weren’t really openly discussed.

“I think the darkness is a reflection of our time, for better or for worse. I think people go to the movies to be confronted or immersed in things that maybe in their real lives they’re a little less eager to look at.”

As someone who regularly writes about the current administration’s global assassination policy, it is refreshing to know that there is a blockbuster science fiction film that Americans can go to this summer that confront them with a scenario that has unfolded multiple times.

I don’t expect the tie-in to reality to change anyone’s mind, but I do think it will give Americans an opportunity to imagine that it is possible to respond to threats or attacks without aggressively starting and waging perpetual war. And, since the genre of science fiction has always been most powerful when it draws from contemporary issues, I consider this film to be much more than just another movie for longtime fans of the Star Trek universe.

He writes, “Let’s be entirely honest here. The attempt to force the organizers to honor Bradley Manning as the grand marshal, even if it is only symbolic, is nothing short of a cynical attempt to hijack what is arguably one of the biggest pride parades in world, particularly in a year in which such great strides have been made in LGBQT equality.”

As someone who has, unlike Tbogg, actually been covering this as a reporter and not merely as a snarky commentator, that is a total smear. A former Grand Marshal, Joey Cain, was part of the electoral college, which in all past years has had the ability to nominate and vote for a Grand Marshal. He nominated Manning. Pride sent out ballots with Manning listed as a nominee, who former Grand Marshals could vote for in the election. Therefore, if this was a “cynical attempt to hijack what is arguably one of the biggest pride parades in the world,” then Pride has itself to blame for being in on it.

“Although the treatment of Manning by the US government is nothing short of criminal, his prosecution has nothing to do with his gayness…” Except, as someone who has, unlike Tbogg, actually been covering Manning as a reporter and not merely as a snarky commentator, it should be stated that his gayness was used against him while he was confined at Quantico. “Rave dancing” in his cell was cited as part of the rationale for keeping him on “prevention of injury” status, which gave the brig the ability to keep him in conditions that essentially amounted to solitary confinement.

While he was in the military, soldiers would make fun of his size and how they thought he was gay. He was listening to Lady GaGa while he was transmitting the information to WikiLeaks.

And, how about this for how Bradley Manning’s story is a queer story?

On January 23, 2010, he was on “mid-tour leave” and visited his boyfriend Tyler Watkins in the Boston area. He said Watkins “did not seem very excited” about his “return from Iraq.” He tried to talk to him about their relationship, but he “refused to make any plans.”

Manning asked what he would do if he saw Iraq and Afghanistan military incident reports of which he had access and thought the public deserved to read. Watkins had no “specific answer.” He tried to follow what Manning was saying but was confused. Manning tried to be more specific yet he was asking “too many questions.”

The conversation was dropped because he could not explain his dilemma. And, after a few days, he felt he’d overstayed his welcome and left to spend the rest of his time on leave in the Washington, DC, area with his aunt.

Tbogg continues, “Whether Manning is a hero or a traitor or something in-between is open to debate, but trying to pass him off as a hero to, or as representative of, the gay community is the height of blatant opportunism by Manning supporters. Obviously I don’t speak for the gay community, but I’d find it highly disrespectful that some people would try and use my movement as a delivery device for their message.”

He concludes, “In other words; don’t piss on my leg and call it a rainbow. If you want to support Bradley Manning, get your own damn parade.”

Neither Tbogg nor anyone who is liberal or progressive should have the authority to apply a litmus test to individuals who sections of a community want to elevate and celebrate. As “tcandew” said in a comment:

Are we to not celebrate the achievements of African Americans when those achievements don’t directly involve civil rights?

Would it only have been ok to honor manning if the cables he leaked exposed nefarious shit about the US governments treatment of gays and not innocent civilians (of who knows what sexuality) halfway around the world?

Or, as Cain told me in an interview:

I got news: the gay community is part of the larger human community. So, when someone does something that exposes the US military’s crimes, that may embarrass the US, but this is stuff Americans should know and the world should know. To me that benefits gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and I don’t buy this argument that he’s done nothing for the gay community because we have this narrow definition of what that means. It’s ridiculous.

He added, “The idea that a gay person who does a heroic act that benefits humanity should not be a Grand Marshal for Pride is reprehensible.”

People who say Manning just “happens to be gay” to argue Manning should not be honored are also attempting to strip away his gay identity.

Tbogg went after a commenter:

…You want to use the Pride parade to make YOUR political point. You want to co-opt it and it is no different than if you wanted to use the parade to promote wind farms or protest fracking. They’re both good ideas but they’re not what the parade is about…

News flash: Pride parades have historically been political. Only with the increased corporatization of Pride parades and celebrations have they become more muted in their politics. However, individuals have always used Pride to call for marriage equality and they have even considered using Pride to oppose war.

So, is Tbogg commenting only because he is upset with Manning supporters? Or is this really about his view of Manning’s case?

Indiscriminately dumping a half million documents (which he could have no way of knowing what they contained) into the public domain just to see what happens is not heroic, it’s felony reckless. Had he limited himself to just releasing the video and attendant documents, you might have a point but he put a lot of people, including Afghan citizens, at risk.

Or maybe that’s just collateral damage to you.

The answer is this is about his view of Manning’s case.

One more time, as someone who has actually covered this story as a reporter and not simply as a snarky commentator who needed a break from skewering Tea Party politics, Manning did not dump any documents. He, in fact, did limit himself and did not release all of the documents of which he had access.

If Tbogg read Manning’s statement, he might realize that Manning actually made a careful calculated decision through research about which sets of documents he was going to disclose to WikiLeaks. But like an over-zealous military prosecutor, he parrots this idea that Manning’s leaks put people’s lives at risk.

Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel and policy advisor in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, and Jordan Bloom, associated editor of The American Conservative, were also on the program during the segment. [Listen to the discussion here. Conversation begins at the 32:00 mark.]

Steiner said, “We’re talking about going after the press, going after America’s right to know. This is nothing that anybody at the AP that exposed anything in Yemen that was not about to become public knowledge or interfere with our operations. We’re talking about someone trying to do investigative reporting to find out what’s going on. That’s what’s so frightening.”

The point was made by Rottman that this is not just about protecting the press but rather protecting the First Amendment. “It’s about us and it’s about our ability to know what the government is doing. And that’s especially important in national security cases where the government has vast authority to keep what it’s doing secret.”

He described the chilling effect the seizure could have on reporting:

…Reporters are going to be wary of giving sources assurances of confidentiality because they know they can’t keep that promise because the government is going to break it. Sources are going to be wary of even taking phone calls from the press because they know that if they even get the phone call it’s quite possible they’ll show up on the phone records that are seized by the Department of Justice in a leak investigation. Reporters are not going to be able to rely on telephones to do their jobs…

Reporters may have to use “burners”—throwaway telephones when communicating with sources—just like drug dealers.

“This is actually sort of a problem with the classification as a whole. Leaks are vilified by folks in Congress and the [Obama] administration,” Bloom added. “But, when it comes down to it, there’s really no incentive for the administration to classify information and so all kinds of stuff that really shouldn’t be classified and is absolutely in the public interest gets classified. So, these leaks are a part of the news media trying to do it’s job and fill its function in our democracy and under our Constitution in the face of this broken classification system. ”

I made several points based off what I have written here at Firedoglake. Most importantly, I had an opportunity to address how presenting the decision to seize AP records as part of trying to maintain a “balance” between national security and press freedom serves those in power, especially since it gives them a way to excuse what would otherwise be considered abuses of authority. [Again, to hear the discussion, go here. Begins at 32:00 mark.]

*

Head of the House Intelligence Committee and former FBI agent, Republican Representative Mike Rogers, has criticized the seizure of the AP records. He said on Bloomberg Television, “It doesn’t appear to me to be appropriate.”

“It seems like it’s a year into the investigation, and they cast a very large dragnet, which tells me that they probably don’t know the answers quite yet,” Rogers added. “Normally, in an investigation like this, if you’re going to do something that’s that sensitive, you would have a very clear thing that you’re trying to determine.”

In June, Rogers was part of the GOP push for a special counsel to investigate leaks. He declared then, “It’s pretty hard not to call it treason when someone is leaking this type of information. I don’t know for what gain, but when it causes this much damage to our ability to continue to do what we do, including putting lives at risk, pretty dangerous stuff.”

Now, he may not support inappropriate dragnet surveillance, but, with a background with the FBI, that is doubtful. It is politically opportunistic for him to give tepid criticism of Obama, as if he did not fuel the political climate that ultimately drove the White House to give the Justice Department the green light to pursue leaks investigations.

*

Another quick note: the environment was already chilly for journalists prior to this news around the Justice Department’s seizure of AP phone records.

New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson recently said in a speech given to journalists at the annual Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in June 2012:

The chilling effect of leaks prosecutions threatens to rob the public of vital information. Sources fear legal retribution for simply talking to reporters. Anyone examining the case of Thomas Drake, a whistleblower who was prosecuted, and what his family went through during his ultimately botched prosecution would think twice before ever talking to a reporter. Reporters fear being subpoenaed in these cases and possibly prosecuted themselves. Several reporters who have covered national security in Washington for decades tell me that the environment has never been tougher or information harder to dislodge. One Times reporter [says] the environment in Washington has never been more hostile to reporting.

This act by the Justice Department means it will get worse for journalists, which should alarm all Americans.

*

On Sunday at 5 pm EST, I will hosting an FDL Book Salon chat with James Goodale, former counsel for the New York Times, who argued the Pentagon Papers case. We’ll be talking about his book, Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.

Goodale recently appeared on “Democracy Now!” Watch his interview and then join the discussion tomorrow, as now more than ever we should be contemplating and discussing issues around freedom of the press.

The Pentagon decided to have CNN interview a female guard who could talk about the “dire conditions” that guards face at the prison. “For the first time,” Lawrence said, “we’re seeing the faces of those who guard the detainees.”

“They use extremely vulgar language toward females and I have a lot of experience with that unfortunately. So, especially Caucasian females, they don’t like us at all,” the female guard says. “They’ll say things like, ‘I’ll piss all over your face.’” They’ll call her a “whore,” a “slut” and say, “You’re trash now.”

The prisoners engage in “splashing,” where they mix water, urine and feces and throw it at guards. It is, according to this guard, the “biggest way to act out,” and has “been happening consistently for the last month and a half. Every single day there’s a splashing.”

This female guard appears to be pretty young so it is likely she has no idea about the history of the prison and how it was setup by the Bush administration to be outside the law so it would be easier to not give the prisoners due process rights.

Many of these people throwing feces and slurs at her have been imprisoned without charge or trial for over eleven years. Many have not seen their families or home for over a decade.

Interviews and tours like this are all arranged by the Pentagon, and the military only has guards or officers at the prison participate in “exclusive” interviews because it will help the Pentagon present the prison to the public in the way it wants the prison to be perceived. In this case, the segment undercuts allegations of abuse by Guantanamo prisoners’ attorneys and those in the human rights community, as it gives voice to a young female guard, who the Pentagon wants the public to know has been a victim of aggressive acts by prisoners.

There is no context provided for the “splashings.” CNN’s Lawrence does not know how the guards ultimately ended up being hit by “water, urine and feces” or if they ever incite prisoners into acting out. Lawrence does not share whether the “splashings” are a way of retaliating against abusive guards.

That is not to condone the throwing of any mixture of bodily waste at military officers, but rather to say that this report does not help the public truly understand what is going on at Guantanamo.

One might recall in March, the military granted “exclusive” access to Robert Johnson of Business Insider for a report. He purportedly uncovered the “other side of the Gitmo strike.” Prisoners have it pretty good at Guantanamo because they are able to “enjoy a selection of six balanced meals, 25 cable TV channels, classes, and,” most importantly, “an array of electronic gadgetry and entertainment, Nintendo DS consoles and Playstation 3 access with a library full of games.” Why worry about being indefinitely detained without charge or trial when you can eat regular meals and play “Angry Birds” every day?

In the same way that Johnson’s story functioned as propaganda to undercut stories coming out about the hunger strike in March, CNN’s interview functions as propaganda by purporting to tell the untold story of how abusive and difficult it is to be on duty at Guantanamo.

It may be hard to be an active participant in a festering example of cruelty, but the public affairs staff’s intent, in approving this interview, is to show the barbarians are the prisoners, not the guards.

Now, the Pentagon probably does not want guards to empathize with prisoners, but imagine having ten years of life stolen by a superpower in the world. There is little that can be done by the human rights community and the international community, including the United Nations, to force the US to set prisoners free. They are only going to be released when the Pentagon is in such a crisis that they cannot handle hunger-striking prisoners anymore because they are afraid a good portion are going to die.

Whatever stress or abuse guards are experiencing is unfortunate, but this situation exists because the US government setup an offshore prison that could be out of sight and out of mind, where prisoners could languish for years without legal recourse whatsoever. The government is now paying for depriving prisoners of their dignity and rights by abusing, brutalizing, degrading, mistreating and neglecting their humanity over the past decade. And so, the plain fact is there would be no throwing of feces if Obama had followed through with his promise and taken more of a political risk to actually close the prison, as he committed to doing in the first months of office.