Search Results

On Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Obama administration that New York Times writer and author James Risen must testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent charged with leaking information on an apparently bungled CIA operation that Risen reports led to an increase in nuclear weapons-building knowledge by Iran.

Risen will speak at the “Whistleblowers, Journalists, and the New War Within” news conference at the National Press Club on Thursday, July 25 organized by the Government Accountability Project. He will appear along with NSA whistleblowers William Binney, Thomas Drake, J. Kirk Wiebe and others.

Closing arguments are scheduled in the Bradley Manning trial later this week. He is being prosecuted for leaking information, including the “Collateral Murder” video, to WikiLeaks. The prosecution has asserted it would prosecute Manning if he leaked the material to the New York Times or other establishment media instead of WikiLeaks.

MARCY WHEELER, emptywheel at gmail.com, @emptywheel
A noted blogger on legal issues, Wheeler writes at EmptyWheel.net. Her recent pieces include “Will Keith Alexander FINALLY Tell the Full Truth about the Section 215 Dragnet in Today’s Secret Emergency Hearing?” and “Fourth Circuit Guts National Security Investigative Journalism Everywhere It Matters.”

TREVOR TIMM, trevor at pressfreedomfoundation.org, @TrevorTimm
Timm is co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He recently wrote the piece “Court Guts Reporter’s Privilege in One of the Most Significant Press Freedom Cases in Decades,” which states: “Recognizing that robust and uninhibited newsgathering is essential to a free press, many courts have established a common law ‘reporter’s privilege’ which protects journalists from having to testify about the identity of their sources in all but the most extreme cases. [Friday], in the most significant reporter’s privilege decision in decades, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals eviscerated that privilege, in the jurisdiction where it is needed most.” He also wrote the piece “White House Shield Bill Could Actually Make It Easier For the Government to Get Journalists’ Sources.”

JAMES GOODALE, via Devi Shah, dkshah at debevoise.com
Goodale represented the New York Times in the landmark Pentagon Papers case, when the Nixon White House attempted to stop the Times from publishing top secret documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. Goodale just wrote the book Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.

Goodale has been addressing Obama administration targeting journalists. See his interview with Columbia Journalism Review where he criticizes the government on the James Risen case.

Many have commented on the alleged irony of the New York Times reporter Risen verdict coming shortly after Holder spoke in favor of a so-called reporter “shield law” proposed by Sen. Charles Schumer. But Goodale has said of the bill: “I just thought that was quite ridiculous, because the bill … has an exception for national security. In other words, if you’re a reporter and you’re talking about national security, the law doesn’t apply. … So, Obama puts it out, thinking the public doesn’t know what I know, and I’m really going to be good to reporters, but it doesn’t protect them at all [in cases of national security].”

In a recent article, Goodale wrote regarding the case of the Obama administration labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen a criminal co-conspirator: “Asking courts to treat journalists as criminals under the Espionage Act has only been asserted once before Holder started using it. President Richard M. Nixon used it against New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, who obtained the Vietnam archives from Daniel Ellsberg. Following the Pentagon Papers case, Nixon convened a grand jury to indict Sheehan for conspiring to cause the leak of the Pentagon Papers. Nixon failed in this effort, and the grand jury disbanded after 17 months.

“The difference between Nixon and Holder is that Nixon failed in his effort to treat Sheehan as a co-conspirator. Nixon therefore could not create the precedent that reporters could be treated as criminals. Holder has. He should resign.”

Regarding the Manning prosecution and the possibility of prosecuting Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, Goodale says: “Wake up! There’s danger out there. You may not like Assange, but wake up! The First Amendment is really going to be damaged, if Obama goes forward [prosecuting Assange] and succeeds, he will have succeeded where Nixon failed.”

JAMES GOODALE, via Devi Shah, dkshah at debevoise.com
Available for a limited number of interviews, Goodale represented The New York Times in the landmark Pentagon Papers case, when the Nixon White House attempted to stop the Times from publishing top secret documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. Goodale just wrote the book Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.

He said: “If in fact he [President Obama] goes ahead and prosecutes Julian Assange [of WikiLeaks], he will pass Nixon [in attacking the First Amendment]. He’s close to Nixon now. The AP example is a good example of something that Obama has done but Nixon never did.”

Asked about the reporter “shield law” proposed by Sen. Charles Schumer and backed by the Obama administration, Goodale said: “I just thought that was quite ridiculous, because the bill that Obama asked Schumer to put into the House has an exception for national security. In other words, if you’re a reporter and you’re talking about national security, the law doesn’t apply. But what is the whole controversy about today with respect to AP? It’s about a national security exception to the privilege that you would think reporters would otherwise have. So, Obama puts it out, thinking the public doesn’t know what I know, and I’m really going to be good to reporters, but it doesn’t protect them at all in the AP situation.”

Goodale questioned the “national security” rationale invoked by the administration: “When you look back at the so-called secrets … it’s all a bunch of malarkey. … The case [of government claims] with the Pentagon Papers was a bunch of — bunch of hot air. So, therefore, when we hear today the attorney general saying, ‘This is the worst secret I have ever seen disclosed,’ you know, beware, because, invariably, these secrets turn out to be non-secrets. They are the ability of the government to protect themselves and their own information and their own political power.”

Goodale connected this to over-classification: “Obama has classified, I think, seven million — in one year, classified seven million documents. Everything is classified. So that would give the government the ability to control all its information on the theory that it’s classified. And if anybody asks for it and gets it, they’re complicit, and they’re going to go to jail. So that criminalizes the process, and it means that the dissemination of information, which is inevitable, out of the classified sources of that information, will be stopped.”

Goodale noted the threat to the First Amendment has been building: “My book is meant to be a clarion call to the journalist community: Wake up! There’s danger out there. You may not like Assange, but wake up! The First Amendment is really going to be damaged, if Obama goes forward [prosecuting Assange] and succeeds, he will have succeeded where Nixon failed.” See Goodale’s full interview on “Democracy Now!” and his piece at the Daily Beast “Is Obama Worse For Press Freedom Than Nixon?”

MARCY WHEELER,  emptywheel at gmail.com, @emptywheel
A noted blogger on legal issues, Wheeler writes at EmptyWheel.net. Her recent pieces include: “Obama’s Headlong Rush to Counterterrorism Transparency” and “AP President Focuses on White House Claims about OBL Anniversary Threats” which notes that AP head Gary Pruitt stated that as the AP had their story about a terror plot: “At the same time, the administration, through the Press Secretary and the Department of Homeland Security were telling the American public that there was no credible evidence of a terrorist plot related to the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. So that was misleading to the American public. We felt the American public needed to know this story.”

TREVOR TIMM, trevor at pressfreedomfoundation.org, @TrevorTimm
Timm is co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. His latest piece notes that Sunday on “Face the Nation,” “President and CEO of the Associated Press Gary Pruitt called the Justice Department’s seizure of AP’s call records ‘unconstitutional’ and said it has already had a chilling effect on newsgathering.” Timm also recently wrote: “Justice Department Investigation of AP Part of Larger Pattern to Intimidate Sources and Reporters.”

The Bradley Manning Support Network notes that “June 1 will mark the beginning of Bradley Manning’s fourth year in prison and the start of his trial.” Manning has acknowledged being the source for WikiLeaks of the “Collateral Murder” video and a trove of documents WikiLeaks has made public.

See Guardian report: “Julian Assange Reveals GCHQ Messages Discussing Swedish Extradition,” which states: “WikiLeaks founder uses subject access request to access British agency chatter, which allegedly calls extradition ‘a fit-up'”

AVI ASHER-SCHAPIRO, via press at cpj.org, @AASchapiro
Avi Asher-Schapiro is the Committee to Protect Journalists’ U.S. correspondent. His work has appeared in outlets including The Atlantic, The Intercept, and The New York Times. He just wrote a piece titled “By suing WikiLeaks, DNC could endanger principles of press freedom.”

He writes: “In April, the Democratic National Committee, the governing body of the Democratic Party, announced that it was suing WikiLeaks and Julian Assange — along with a number of other defendants, including the Trump campaign and Russian operatives — for their alleged involvement in the theft and dissemination of DNC computer files during the 2016 election. On its surface, the DNC’s argument seems to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bartnicki v. Vopper that publishers are not responsible for the illegal acts of their sources. It also goes against press freedom precedents going back to the Pentagon Papers and contains arguments that could make it more difficult for reporters to do their jobs or that foreign governments could use against U.S. journalists working abroad, First Amendment experts told CPJ. …

“The notion that journalistic activity such as cultivating sources and receiving illegally obtained documents could be construed as part of a criminal conspiracy is, according to [The New York Times‘ Pentagon Papers lawyer James] Goodale, the ‘greatest threat to press freedom today.’ …

“The case raises a number of important press freedom questions: Where should courts draw the line between source-building and ‘conspiring’? What activities could implicate a journalist in a source’s illegal behavior? Would putting a SecureDrop link soliciting leaks count as illegal conspiracy? And if a reporter asked for documents on an individual while indicating that they think the person deserves to be exposed, would that count as shared motive, or is the only truly protected activity passively receiving leaks, like radio host Vopper? …”Many of the legal experts said they assume the counts that mention Assange and WikiLeaks will be dismissed when the judge assesses if the conspiracy claims in the DNC lawsuit are ‘plausible.’ If the judge moves forward, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck said, it will be because he finds a way to substantially differentiate what WikiLeaks does from routine reporting practices.

“However, Charles Glasser, a professor at NYU’s journalism school who spent over a dozen years as global media counsel for Bloomberg, said that if the charges against Assange and WikiLeaks survived, it could pave the way for companies or others to label everyone — from those who illegally obtain documents to the press — as co-conspirators.”