The Witch Hunt Against Assange Is Turning into an Extremely Dangerous Assault on Journalism Itself

[Better Believe It]

The Witch Hunt Against Assange Is Turning into an Extremely Dangerous Assault on Journalism Itself
The Obama admin's reported plan to indict Julian Assange strikes at the heart of investigative journalism on national security scandals.
By Robert Parry
December 17, 2010

Whatever the unusual aspects of the case, the Obama administration’s reported plan to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiring with Army Pvt. Bradley Manning to obtain U.S. secrets strikes at the heart of investigative journalism on national security scandals.

That’s because the process for reporters obtaining classified information about crimes of state most often involves a journalist persuading some government official to break the law either by turning over classified documents or at least by talking about the secret information. There is almost always some level of “conspiracy” between reporter and source.

A Nixon Precedent

Yet, in the WikiLeaks case – instead of simply complaining and moving on – the Obama administration appears to be heading in a direction not seen since the Nixon administration sought to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers secret history of the Vietnam War in 1971. In doing so, the Obama administration, which came to power vowing a new era of openness, is contemplating a novel strategy for criminalizing traditional journalistic practices, while trying to assure major U.S. news outlets that they won’t be swept up in the Assange-Manning dragnet.

As for the Obama administration, its sudden aggressiveness in divining new “crimes” in the publication of truthful information is especially stunning when contrasted with its “see no evil” approach toward openly acknowledged crimes committed by President George W. Bush and his subordinates, including major offenses such as torture, kidnapping and aggressive war.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.alternet.org/news/149252/the_witch_hunt_against_assange_is_turning_into_an_extremely_dangerous_assault_on_journalism_itself/?page=1

[sabrina 1]

1. Excellent article from Parry

He is one of the best and has seen so much of the history of how we have arrived at the dangerous point in history we are now at.

I am so completely disgusted with the response from this administration to the freedom of the press when it embarrasses this country. But then, the leaked documents did show how this president actively interfered in the Spanish court's attempt to get justice for those tortured by the U.S. while on the surface, claiming they were taking no part in going after the war criminals, they just 'want to move on'. Which was bad enough.

I don't see how any true progressive, liberal, democrat cannot be outraged over the stand taken by this administration. The disrespect for human rights revealed in the documents is simply stunning.

[JDPriestly]

80. sabrina 1, this really is an excellent article.

Thanks for your comment.

[leveymg]

94. Holder let the AIPAC guys walk free after they did exactly the same thing. DOJ concluded no crime

was committed under the 1917 Espionage by the recipients of classified information, even though AIPAC employees, Weissman and Rosen, actively conspired with Lt. Col. Larry Franklin and Israeli intelligence officers to receive U.S. classified documents without authorization. Only the U.S. military officer, Lt. Col. Larry Franklin, who released the classified documents was fully prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned - as, indeed, he should have been. The other indicted defendants were allowed to walk last year after DOJ concluded there is no Official Secrets Act under which they might be indicted in the U.S. - yet.

According to the Revised Indictment, AIPAC employees worked with Franklin under the direction of Naor Gilon, the Mossad Chief of Station in DC, to salt Pentagon Files with documents Gilon had "suggested" about Iran's nuclear program - Iraq WMD, again. Yet, Gilon was allowed to leave the country, and the prosecution was dropped against Weissman and Rosen. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/14/12390/3206

Why the double-standard with Assange? Is he to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act because he isn't operating inside the confines of a traditional espionage and influence operation? Does rule of law mean nothing, anymore? Has the world been turned inside out?

[ClarkUSA]

2. Bullshit. The women Assange raped and assaulted are left-wing activists who admired his work.

He's a misogynistic pervert who deserves what is coming to him legally from Sweden:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[EFerrari]

4. This article is about journalism, not about Assange.

[glinda]

6. So you have already judged him. In spite of all the evidence that appears to support otherwise.

I can respect your feelings overall about rape. Many people feel as adamant as you. That does not mean he raped them though.

[ClarkUSA]

14. What "evidence"? I think he's a misogynistic pervert who deserves the scrutiny he's getting.

[glinda]

18. That is judgement.

[ClarkUSA]

28. It's my opinion. Where's your evidence?

[glinda]

29. You don't back it up.

[ClarkUSA]

32. So you have no evidence. But I offered facts from the New York Times.

Gotcha. Don't waste my time.

[markpkessinger]

42. Oh, well, that settles it then . . .

. . . because surely the New York Times has no self interest whatsoever about reporting on a whistleblower who exposes the media's collusion with government and corporate interests. Silly me.

[glinda]

48. lol!

[Le Taz Hot]

95. +1

LOL! Excellent!

[pscot]

63. You offered a report based on allegations

from a leaked secret police document (irony?). Michael Moore, in a letter published at Dkos, alleges that rape charges are routinely ignored by Swedish police and that less than 1 in 10 rape charges lodged by Swedish women results in prosecution. The Assange case looks like politically motivated persecution. You seem to be angry about what Assange has done. Fine. But let's be clear about what's going on here.

[WinkyDink]

69. The NYT? The WMD NYT?

[tblue37]

71. Because the NYT is such a *factual* newspaper. I mean, look at all those WMDs they

found in Iraq!. . . .Oh, wait. . . .

[sabrina 1]

83. You offered nothing, You offered nothing but false allegations.

I would, but do not want to hi-jack this thread which appears to be your goal, present the facts about these allegations which make a mockery of these smears, smears promised by the CIA in a document released by Wikileaks just months before they apparently made good on their threat.

Fortunately you are among a tiny minority of people around the globe who are not fooled by them.

Now, this thread is about the threats to journalism in this country. A far more important issue than a couple of attention seeking groupies whose texts show that they planned the whole thing and even wondered how much money they might get for their behavior.

Did the NYT publish those messages? No, I didn't think so.

[Javaman]

105. Being a water carrier is so very unattractive. nt

[Alameda]

117. You mean, the same NYT that Judith Miller worked for?

[WinkyDink]

68. The evidence presentation requirement lies with the accuser.

[kenfrequed]

111. Err...

How about innocent until proven guilty? Does that enter into this discussion at all?

How about a detailed history of the charges including the statements made against him so that we can assure that the stories haven't been shifting around until they can find something to stick to him.

Facts. Above all facts in this case.

[TheKentuckian]

21. No such animal as consensual rape and you are using the trumped up charges

as a red herring.

Even if he is guilty, what the fuck does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

[ClarkUSA]

55. I am using the facts as stated by the Swedish police report. Read the article.

[Octafish]

22. New York Times said Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and was loaded with WMDs.

They lied.

[EFerrari]

24. The very John Burns ClarkUSA keeps quoting worked very closely wih

Judy Germs Miller.

[ClarkUSA]

58. So what? Clinton worked closely with Dick Morris. Does that mean he's full of shit now?

[ClarkUSA]

57. So what? Clinton lied, too. I guess we can't believe a thing Bubba says, either?

Besides, the article quotes from the Swedish police report. Unless you have evidence otherwise, these are the facts.

[tomm2thumbs]

89. but the NY Times is a factual newspaper created without humans, so it cannot tell a lie

it can only tell the truth - there is no human intervention - it is a computer that only produces facts and truths

it is something to make legal judgments with, like a calculator that says 2 + 2 = 4... we should decide all court cases merely based on what is printed on its pristine pages of truth and insight, for it sees all and knows all

it is our judge and jury

we must follow

[markpkessinger]

40. He hasn't even been charged by Sweden

Presumably, if Sweden had sufficient evidence to indict him, they would have done so by now. The fact that these charges were brought, then dropped, and then suddenly resurrected in the form of wanting Assange for "questioning" precisely at the time when various governments are loudly complaining about him, reeks of inappropriate political interference with Sweden's criminal justice system.

If there is sufficient evidence to bring him to trial, then by all means I think Sweden should do so. But, regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence concerning the non-charges, and how ever much of a sleaze you might believe him to be, that case should be dealt with on its own merits and should not be used as a pretext for silencing a journalist whose work exposes things our government, as well as other governments and multinational corporations, don't want the public to know.

[ClarkUSA]

59. He refuses to go in for questioning. If he's innocent, why won't he go?

[WinkyDink]

70. Seriously? You would just waltz into a police station AS AN INNOCENT MAN to be questioned?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

85. Assange did not refuse to go in to be questioned ...

they offered a date which he turned down, but then he offered them any day

any time the following week.

After that it became obvious they were doing the USA's dirty work --

[Javaman]

108. I guess you are also one of those folks that has no problem with being spied on by the government...

because you have nothing to hide, right?

stubborness in the face of facts is not a life path.

[robinlynne]

49. He didn't rape anyone and is not accused of rape. he is accused of letting a condom break.

big difference. The woman who accused him shared her bed with hi for a week evry day after the incident. It wasn't rape.
the other woman left the country and mvoed to another continent, maybe to not perjure herself?

[ClarkUSA]

60. Not true. There's alot more than that to the accusations. Read the article.

[robinlynne]

65. exactly as I said:

When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

The woman after being raped slept in bed with him for a full week?
really?
I have been raped. the only way in the world you will see that man again is if you are bound and gagged or held at gunpoint.
there is NO way any woman will spend a week sleeping with a man who raped her by choice. no way. sorry. you must be a man to call it rape.

[kenfrequed]

112. exactly

This does injury to the justice system, for its being twisted to harass someone politically inconvenient, it does damage to Assange in an efort to discredit him, but worst of all it does injury to every woman that has actually been raped by comparing the actual crime of rape to a broken condom. Absolutely absurd and horrible.

Does this mean that the next time a woman legitimately comes to the police with charges of rape will the police roll their eyes and just assume: 'oh well another broken condom'?

[robinlynne]

66. Both women had sex with him AGAIN after the "rapes". went to lunch together. One had a

party for Assange a week later.

there was no assault or rape, not even in the women's stories.

[KurtNYC]

54. Red herring anyone... anyone.... Bueller

this article and thread aren't about those charges.

[JDPriestly]

79. The rape accusations, true or not, have nothing to do with

arresting him for publishing Wikileaks.

Parry is talking more generally about freedom of the press and the effect of the government's threats against Assange will have on freedom of the press.

Assange's sex life has nothing to do with freedom of the press other than that the press enjoys the freedom to publish all the details about the allegations against Assange that it wishes to publish.

Freedom still means something and one of those things is freedom of the press.

The New York Times has the same right to publish the Wikileaks documents as it does to publish accusations about Assange's personal life -- exactly the same right. But the two things have nothing to do with each other.

Whether Assange is the victim of a couple of women scorned or some sort of sexual deviant is impossible to know at this time.

[sabrina 1]

82. And what do you think about the fact that this administration is

threatening to prosecute an award-winning News Organization for doing what news organizations are supposed to do?

How about Lieberman's statement that they should also prosecute the NYT for reporting the news, UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT? Is a silly, fabricated, tabloid smear more important to you than the state of our Freedom of the Press, or are you simply trying to distract, which is the purpose of those fake charges, from the real issues?

I'd love to hear your views on criminalizing journalism.

[sirthomas66]

88. He is an international hero who has exposed the United States for

what it is: a viciously crooked dying empire that kills innocents because it is its sole product. And you? You're just redundant.

[Dappleganger]

90. And you know this for a fact how?

I take it you have little knowledge of what constitutes "rape" in Sweden.

[LadyHawkAZ]

93. He's been convicted already?

And here was me thinking they hadn't even filed charges yet. How did I miss the entire trial? I was only offline for a few hours!

How did you get such advance information?

[smiley]

120. your post:

yes, I would say it is B.S.

and so aren't the charges against Assange.

However, this isn't what the OP was talking about.

[EFerrari]

3. Robert Parry is a treasure.

:kick:

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Which brings up the question: what exactly does this party stand for?

>>>>>Whatever the unusual aspects of the case, the Obama administration’s reported plan to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiring with Army Pvt. Bradley Manning to obtain U.S. secrets strikes at the heart of investigative journalism on national security scandals.

That’s because the process for reporters obtaining classified information about crimes of state most often involves a journalist persuading some government official to break the law either by turning over classified documents or at least by talking about the secret information. There is almost always some level of “conspiracy” between reporter and source.

A Nixon Precedent

Yet, in the WikiLeaks case – instead of simply complaining and moving on – the Obama administration appears to be heading in a direction not seen since the Nixon administration sought to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers secret history of the Vietnam War in 1971. In doing so, the Obama administration, which came to power vowing a new era of openness, is contemplating a novel strategy for criminalizing traditional journalistic practices, while trying to assure major U.S. news outlets that they won’t be swept up in the Assange-Manning dragnet.

As for the Obama administration, its sudden aggressiveness in divining new “crimes” in the publication of truthful information is especially stunning when contrasted with its “see no evil” approach toward openly acknowledged crimes committed by President George W. Bush and his subordinates, including major offenses such as torture, kidnapping and aggressive war.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If we renominate this president, do we not affirm the above mentality?

This is NOT the Democratic Party I've been working for and supporting since 1972.

If Mr. Obama and his camp wish to stand for second term , let them do so under another rubric.

[krabigirl]

8. Corporatism and unbridled nation-building. Oh, with a few bones thrown at the "base."

[TexasObserver]

7. Yes, this assault on reason begins with Sweden inventing a case.

Sweden is the dancing monkey and the USA is the organ grinder.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Do you have a shred of evidence for your claims? I doubt it.

"... Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer for the two Swedish women, who is Sweden’s former equal opportunities ombudsman, and the spokesman on gender equality issues for the Social Democratic Party, the main opposition group in the Swedish Parliament. In an interview in Stockholm, Mr. Borgstrom, 66, said it was common under Sweden’s rape laws for men who force sex on women without a condom to face prosecution. “It’s a violation of sexual integrity, and it can be seen as rape,” he said.

By presenting the case as a vendetta, he said, Mr. Assange and his legal team were misrepresenting a justice system that required approval from Sweden’s highest appeals court before the extradition warrant was approved. “Those who say that the judges in our court of appeal were influenced by pressure from the United States don’t know what they’re talking about,” he said. “It’s absurd.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[TexasObserver]

13. Yes, and it's apparent to most reasonable people.

I've read one of your posts on the subject, so I don't need to read any more. I don't agree with any of your beliefs or analyses on this topic, so save us both a lot of trouble and address someone else.

Thanks.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Where is it? You'll have to do better than conspiracy rhetoric, I'm afraid.

[nashville_brook]

25. actually, the US justice dept is going to have to do better than "conspiracy rhetoric."

[ClarkUSA]

27. What are you talking about? Quote Eric Holder. It's Sweden that has the case against him.

If you bothered to read the NYT, you'd know that.

[ImOnlySleeping]

97. interpol

Let me know the last time Interpol was involved in a rape case.

[TexasObserver]

102. It's obvious to anyone who is logical and rational this is a bogus case.

Your need to find sexual assault drives your belief.

The evidence simply does not support any of your extreme suppositions.

[EFerrari]

19. I hope John Burns is more accurate on this story than he was Saddam's WMD. n/

[ClarkUSA]

30. He's quoting the Swedish authorities. Unless you have proof otherwise, he's accurate.

[EFerrari]

31. You mean, like he reduces the timeline to only four days

doesn't mention Ardin invited Assange to Sweden or that both women approached him? John Burns is a cheerleader for the War Party. And Greenwald was spot on about him:

But the low point of this smear campaign was led by The New York Times' John Burns, who authored a sleazy hit piece on Assange -- filled with every tawdry, scurrilous tabloid rumor about him -- that was (and still is) prominently featured in the NYT, competing for attention with the stories about the leaked documents themselves, and often receiving more attention.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/24/assange/index.html

[ClarkUSA]

33. You obviously didn't read the NYT article I highlighted. Go back and read it before replying to me.

Check out how wrong you are:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Like I said, unless you have evidence otherwise, don't spout conspiracy theories to me. I'm not interested.

[EFerrari]

35. Yes, I have read that.

The criticism stands. Burns is a hack for the War Party. His reporting is dishonest and no one should rely on him.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Yet you accuse Burns of not reporting things he did indeed mention in his article.

"he.... doesn't mention Ardin invited Assange to Sweden or that both women approached him?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=40258&mesg_id=40909

If you really had read Burns' article, you'd know that. Talk about an assault on journalism. :eyes:

[mogster]

43. If this has nothing to do with journalism and wikileaks

Why are we debating it here? ;-)
Small, unimportant rape case from far away, don't you have anything better to spend your time on? Your ardent argument points to this being about the leaks, not the rape.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. "Why are we debating it here?"

Because when an article doesn't look Obama look dreamy, out come the pom-poms.

[kenfrequed]

113. for that matter

The wikileaks stuff is far more damning to the Bushies than anything that occured during the Obama watch. Why are people here trying to go along with the crucifixtion of this guy on obviously bogus and trumped up charges. Even Hitchens, who criticized Assange for his leaks, stated that the charges looked very dodgy.

[awoke_in_2003]

123. we know Bush...

was complicit in this, and the Obama admin refuses to investigate. The whole "meet the new boss. Same as the old boss" thing.

[EFerrari]

78. Look at this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40735131/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security

I was talking about his work in general, too, obviously. Both his reporting on this story which is embarrassing and in general, which is also embarrassing.

[Enthusiast]

92. You are just a tad

feverish about this aren't you?

[Javaman]

109. Me thinks he protests to much.

It as if the poster has a horse in this race.

Really weird.

[Enthusiast]

110. Same impression, here. nt

[Catherina]

61. Claes Borgstrom, the man who wants every man in Sweden to pay a "Man Tax"

for being dirty, rotten scoundrels who, due to their collective guilt, should pay up for the victimization of women.

"common under Sweden’s rape laws for men who force sex on women without a condom to face prosecution". I can't even stop laughing at this.
Yes sir, he's convinced me that these charges, brought on many months later, after the leaks started, have any sort of credibility.

The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. Bush is wanted for war crimes by another country, his actions leading to the death of tens of thousands. The current US President just says "meh", covers for the crimes and continues them.

Julian wanted for uh..... "doing something to his condom? - "That bastard is going DOWN!"

[sabrina 1]

84. Do you know anything about Claes Borgstrom?

Did you know that he believes that all men share a collective guilt regarding violence against women regardless of whether they have ever been violent themselves? That he supported a law in Sweden proposed by a rabid, wacko 'feminist' politician who proposed that all men should pay a tax to cover that collective guilt?

These people are nuts. which is much to Assange's advantage.

And why, if what they are claiming is true, have THERE BEEN NO CHARGES? I think because the prosecutors know they are dealing with some very strange people, which includes both of the women who have left a trail on the internet totally contradicting their later claims, a trail which they tried to erase, but too late. Not to mention their messages to each other, where it appears they planned the whole thing. Why is all this not in the NYT? Because it would show what a smear job this is.

Again, where are the charges? I will be surprised if there ever are any charges. This is a smear, pure and simple. And since the CIA threatened to smear him, they are the prime suspects.

[Enthusiast]

91. LOL!

I once had a condom break during sex. I wasn't even aware that it had broken until after the fact. You are wrong wrong wrong.

[lib2DaBone]

9. Some say... the CIA is using Assange to get at it's enemies

it's called "Striptease" in CIA jargon.. or self-exposure for specific purposes.

What Assange has done..basically... is open the internet to strict control and censorship via the Espionage Act of 1917. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917. THis awful piece of legislation passed in 1917 is still on the books and is like The Patriot Act on steroids.


The masnion where Assange has taken refuge in England (Iliam Hall)(sp) is owned by Mr. Von Smith, a retired British Army Officer with storng connections the British Intelligence and CIA operations.

Michael Moore has paid Assagne's bail... I hope he gets his money back...it's going to be interesting.

All things are not as they appear on the surface.

[EFerrari]

11. Vaughan Smith is a big supporter of independent journalism

and helped found the Frontline Club.

[Better Believe It]

12. Some say other outrageous things designed to isolate Assange and weaken his defense

The CIA and other government spy agencies specialize in that sort of Cointelpro type operations to discredit people.

They still do that under President Obama.

[KurtNYC]

56. the ancient "Kill the Messenger" strategy has become "character assassinate the Messenger"

in our era.

[sabrina 1]

87. Some say when the CIA cannot control things, they make up

stories. Let them try to shut down the Internet. They didn't need Wikileaks to try to do that, they've been trying for a long time.

Assange has been passionate about human rights since he was a kid. If this was some kind of CIA plot, it is a big fat fail. Because people support freedom of the press and going after a news organization has angered people all over the world. Not very smart of them, because even if it was a plot, it has back-fired already. It isn't about Assange, no matter how much they try to make it so. It's about a far bigger issue, and if they think the riots of Social programs being cut are bad, wait 'til they try to kill the internet.

Was Ellsberg a CIA asset also btw? Some people probably said he was so that the government could control the press.

[kenfrequed]

114. More likely...

That someone would make up the story that Assange is somehow doing the CIA's bidding to discredit his releases as deliberate misinformation and to scare off those that would defend him. The internet has allowed powerful people to be able to shroud the truth in data smog.

[sabrina 1]

122. I agree, which is why a don't give those claims any credibility.

[Pavulon]

16. Journalisim is not conspiracy in theft..

if you write a story on embezzlement you can watch and detail crime. You can not participate.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. You hold this "conspiracy" stuff to be Word of God, don't you?

No way the data was simply submitted.

[Pavulon]

50. (1:51:25 PM) bradass87: i'd have to ask assange , <

evidence will be written in logs.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Let's not take things out of context, shall we?

(1:51:14 PM) Adrian Lamo: Anything unreleased?
(1:51:25 PM) Bradley Manning: i'd have to ask assange
(1:51:53 PM) Bradley Manning: i zerofilled the original
(1:51:54 PM) Adrian Lamo: why do you answer to him?
(1:52:29 PM) Bradley Manning: i dont... i just want the material out there... i dont want to be a part of it

First: that doesn't say Assange knew who Manning was, it says Manning knew who Assange was.

Second: what that says is, at some point in the past, Manning submitted the data and then erased his own copies. As a consequence, he no longer knows what hasn't gone public yet. Duh.

[Pavulon]

53. Redacted. WIll be interesting to see the logs

manning is part of the evidence assange. It will be part of the trial.

[JDPriestly]

81. Manning says he doesn't answer to Assange.

This suggests that Manning just gave the information to Assange and then didn't have much more to do with it.

Saying "I'd have to ask assange" means "I don't know, I'd have to ask Assange." It does not mean "I will ask Assange," or even "I have to or am supposed to ask Assange."

The meanings are totally, completely different. Of course if a person is autistic or not a native English speaker, he or she might not understand the difference.

[Better Believe It]

119. A few more months or even years in solitary and Manning might change his tune!

They'll do whatever it takes to make him confess and implicate Julian Assange.

Of course, they can just about make him "confess" to anything they want with enhanced interrogation techniques.

[Uncle Joe]

17. This is a great article by Parry and well worth the read. Don't expect many in the corporate media

to defend Assange or Wikileaks, even those on the left, they're already owned and can only push the envelope so far within the current dysfunctional American Press system. If they get too rowdy, they will be Phil Donahued and they know it.

I don't know what our current ranking re: freedom of the press is concerned, but in 2006 it was 53rd, we were in a four way tie with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga, I honestly don't believe we've improved much if any since then, but regardless this current witch hunt can only set us back further.

If we lose protection of the First Amendment, no other Amendment in the Bill of Rights is safe.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x242406


The France-based, international media-rights monitoring organization Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders) has issued its annual Press Freedom Index describing conditions journalists face around the world as they try to do their jobs....

..."The United States (now only 53rd place on its list) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[stray cat]

20. So far it's just assange.....

[EFerrari]

23. Stars and Stripes newspaper threatened with government censorship due to WikiLeaks articles

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x40508

[xchrom]

26. Recommend

[Marr]

34. This moronic bullshit works, apparently. Everyone's talking about Assange, and no one is

talking about the information brought to light.

I don't care if Julian Assange is a crack-addicted poacher who moonlights as a prostitute. He's not the story. But that's the only way our corporate media will talk about Wikileaks.

[truedelphi]

38. See my remark, number 35.

The "media" has been corrupted to an extreme.

I was able to document that corruption.

[scarletwoman]

44. +1,000!

[socialist_n_TN]

45. I agree with your last paragraph............

He's NOT THE STORY!

[Catherina]

62. Done deliberately. +10,000 n/t

[EFerrari]

76. Foreign press is doing much, much better. nt

[emmadoggy]

77. Absolutely agree! That has been driving me nuts! nt

[truedelphi]

37. Several years ago, I documented the types of "Filters"

Placed around true journalistic efforts, and it was the ultimate disturbing picture of what is passing for news.

The fact that John Froines was said by the AP wire story to have made statements he never made, and that were actually the reverse of the statements that he had made (Froines was the top researcher on Calif's MTBE panel) - this left a chilling effect on me.

www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/22/540267/-The-TRUTH-Versus-the-Mainstream-Media

In essence, what I am saying is that if a story involves Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Insurers or Big Financial in a bad light, then the story will either go unreported or be slanted.

Our CIA has worked very hard to make sure that nothing resembling the truth will ever see light of day.
At least, the truth will not emerge through the traditional channels.

[DeSwiss]

39. K&R

- This is what is done in a police state that masquerades as a democracy.

[treestar]

41. What journalism?

He simply published classified documents leaked to him, without context of any kind, and in objection to no particular thing.

[MilesColtrane]

52. Good point.

Daniel Ellsberg had Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn analyze, notate, and edit the Pentagon Papers before they were published by Beacon Press.

[EFerrari]

74. Wikileaks has people doing analysis, too and

they work with the papers in redaction.

[Better Believe It]

64. The kind of journalism that won Julian Assange the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award.

It's not always wise to comment on things you're not familiar with in order to make a drive-by personal attack.

[WinkyDink]

67. The O admin is also arguing in court that a citizen has no right to privacy ANYWHERE NOT HIS

DOMICILE, AND EVEN THEN HIS DRIVEWAY IS "PUBLIC", ALLOWING THE FEDS TO ATTACH A GPS TO HIS CAR WITHOUT A WARRANT.

This Administration is THE MOST anti-privacy rights for CITIZENS and PRO-privacy for executive decisions since Nixon.

So this assault on journalism comes as no surprise.

[EFerrari]

75. What case is that, WinkyDink? n/t

[benEzra]

107. Details here.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

[EFerrari]

121. Thank you, benEzra.

:)

[defendandprotect]

86. Wow .... this may be the last hurrah for journalism .... look what it takes now to get truth!!

And the secrets may even been filthier than ever?

[Mimosa]

99. Is there a link to article about the domicile/driveway case?

I haven't heard about it. This country has changed beyond all recognition.

[benEzra]

106. Here's an article from Time:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

[Mimosa]

116. Thank you, Ben Ezra.

Shocking excerpt from middle of article:

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)

The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz18g6NkyEw

[Kurovski]

72. K&R. (nt)

[rucky]

96. Has the US charged him with anything? No.

But the justice department is colluding with corporate america to skirt due process, and punish Assange without using the courts. That precedent is just as scary - or even scarier - than when/if they try to bring up charges.

The government + big business has the power to completely cut off your income and kill your livelihood without due process. They could theoretically do this to anyone, any time, for any reason and there's nothing to stop them.

[Pharaoh]

98. Truth

Spread it.................K&R

[myrna minx]

100. K&R n/t

[elias7]

101. Wikileaks is a media outlet

It doesn't matter who heads, just as it wouldn't matter if the managing editor of the NYTimes was accused of a crime. The paper would not fold. Wiki receives intelligence from leaked sources, not unlike other media outlets, has an editorial staff that filters the info, and then releases the info unadulterated by text and headlines. The reader decides what is important, not the paper.

Wiki is carrying the load for the rest of the media, which have proven themselves to not be up to the task. remember Sibel Edmonds. Went to paper after paper and no one would touch it until BBC or someone did.

Michael Moore's point-- that if Wikileaks had existed in 2002, would we have gone to war in Iraq-- is the most compelling argument for its existence. The threat of exposure would make a more honest government. If the press isn't going to do its job, the new press --wikileaks-- will.

[abelenkpe]

118. +1 nt.

[xchrom]

103. kick

[DirkGently]

104. I am disappointed to see this administration pick up the cause of Gov't Secrecy with such enthusiasm

[sofa king]

115. "Journalism" has been a laughable sham for 10 years.

The assault which you describe is an assault on the last remaining vestiges of honest, accurate reporting, at this point a microscopic subset of the new entertainment and propaganda industry formerly known as "news." Recall that only one news agency in the United States, McClatchy, ever had the stones to publish something remotely approaching the truth during the Bush years.

So screw 'em. They're dead, corrupted, and one more weapon to be turned against us, and have been since they were used to steal the election of 2000.