Speaking of witch hunts
Paul to Trump:
Be my guest at trial
Senator urging a deal on Assange
as press firestorm rages over
crackdown on cyber-journalism
Top Dem candidates rip Trump and blast cyber-journalism attacks
Pompeo, Clinton both notorious for Russia smears tarring those journalists they don't like
as press firestorm rages over
crackdown on cyber-journalism
Top Dem candidates rip Trump and blast cyber-journalism attacks
Sanders, Warren denouncing cyber-squeeze against Assange, Greenwald
Pompeo, Clinton both notorious for Russia smears tarring those journalists they don't like
Rand Paul says President Trump is welcome to attend the Senate trial of Trump's impeachment charges as his personal guest.
The Kentucky Republican, while differing from Trump on a number of policy issues, regards the impeachment articles as an irresponsible partisan maneuver. He said most Americans -- presumably including senators -- had already made up their minds as to impeachment articles. He scoffed at the articles, comparing the Democrats' indignance with their glacial silence when Obama did similar things.
In the meantime, Paul has urged a compromise on the Assange case that would permit the Trump administration and Congress a means of ending the free press crisis, one that is liable to come to a head during the heat of the presidential race. Assange is being held in a maximum security British prison on ground that he poses a flight risk as the United States demands his extradition to face charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, along with cyber-law technicalities, that have never before been used against people publicly disseminating secrets who have not signed secrecy agreements.
Under the artful deal, all U.S. charges against Assange would be dropped in return for his testimony before Congress under immunity granted by the Justice Department and Congress. Trump came under pressure from Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA chief, who publicly excoriated Assange and WikiLeaks as Russian tools after WikiLeaks published some CIA documents that disclosed some ideas for ways the government could rig electronic devices so as to be able to spy on those nearby.
However, the pretext used by the Justice Department in its case was WikiLeaks' publication of low-security material, including a video in which a U.S. helicopter crew kills a group of journalists in Iraq and papers that disclosed the confidential opinions of U.S. diplomats about foreign politicians. Since that time, Assange has been the target of a witch hunt by the Deep Swamp, including trivial Swedish sex charges that were dropped but then reinstated under U.S. pressure.
A storm of criticism is arising worldwide about the Assange case -- a storm that has been fueled by Brazilian charges against Gleen Greenwald by a vengeful president, angered that crooked trial-rigging was exposed by Greenwald's publication of private messages. Like Assange, Greenwald was accused of violating cyber-security laws. Among those denouncing the Assange indictment are Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, now retired as a Republican congressman from Texas. Both Pauls are vigorous defenders of individual liberties against government intrusion and are both known as libertarians.
Among the press groups registering dismay at what they see as Trumpian tactics are:
EFF said,
Sanders has blistered Trump's Justice Department for making itself the arbiter over who is a reporter and who is not. “Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution,” Sanders tweeted. “Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”
The Sanders campaign also spoke out against the Greenwald charges. Sanders' campaign co-chairperson, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said he is crafting legislation to protect journalists for being prosecuted over their work. Presumably he means U.S. journalists, such as Greenwald, living overseas.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has chastised Trump for exploiting the Assange case as a "pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday.” She called on Brazil to drop cybercrime charges against Greenwald.
Warren however has, in carefully worded statements, appeared to stick with the Clinton line that demands that Assange be punished for hurting Clinton's campaign. “Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable,” Warren has said.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or., also rebuked the Trump team on press freedom. “This is not about Julian Assange,” Wyden said. “This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information. I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”
Wyden was also very critical of the Obama administration for its secret domestic surveillance program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The following information comes primarily from The Intercept:
Data included in those documents were reported by outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian; the Obama administration had always been reluctant to indict Assange due to what it called “the New York Times problem.” There was no way to say that Assange’s action was criminal without also saying that much of what the Times and other mainstream outlets do is also against the law.
Indeed, the documents are still officially classified, meaning that anybody who discusses them, even in the context of Assange’s indictment, could themselves be accused of a crime, despite the First Amendment and the fact that the person had signed no secrecy agreement. Transparency advocates have said that the executive branch has been classifying far too much basic information — the soup of the day at the CIA’s cafeteria, for instance, could be classified.
Greenwald's media outlet, The Intercept, said of the Assange case:
Assange critics have quibbled over characterizing him as a journalist, but press freedom advocates are alarmed at the Justice Department’s use of the Espionage Act to target someone who publishes leaked information, as opposed to targeting only the leaker. John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, has said that “Assange is no journalist,” and that the department “takes seriously the role of journalists and our democracy and we support it.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists said irrespective of how the Justice Department may characterize Assange’s role, the indictment “could chill investigative reporting.”
By Demers' statement, the Trump Justice Department is assigning the government the right to determine who is a real journalist, which in effect means the Justice Department is able and willing to license journalists -- a concept that not so long ago was anathema to U.S. news professionals.
The CPJ North America coordinator, Alexandra Ellerbeck, called the Trump team's move a "reckless assault on the First Amendment that crosses a line no previous administration has been willing to cross, and threatens to criminalize the most basic practices of reporting.”
Reached for comment at the time by The Intercept, a spokesman for Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., head of the House Judiciary Committee, and now a chief House impeachment manager, said he had nothing on the Assange matter. Similarly, the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.
Canadians imitate Pompeo, U.S. Dems with Russia smears
If you criticize the government, you must be a Russian asset, a Putin puppet.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/01/22/consortium-news-libel-notices-cse-global-news-canada-russia/
The Kentucky Republican, while differing from Trump on a number of policy issues, regards the impeachment articles as an irresponsible partisan maneuver. He said most Americans -- presumably including senators -- had already made up their minds as to impeachment articles. He scoffed at the articles, comparing the Democrats' indignance with their glacial silence when Obama did similar things.
In the meantime, Paul has urged a compromise on the Assange case that would permit the Trump administration and Congress a means of ending the free press crisis, one that is liable to come to a head during the heat of the presidential race. Assange is being held in a maximum security British prison on ground that he poses a flight risk as the United States demands his extradition to face charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, along with cyber-law technicalities, that have never before been used against people publicly disseminating secrets who have not signed secrecy agreements.
Rand Paul's artful deal on Assange
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/16/rand-paul-floats-immunity-julian-assange-senators-/
Under the artful deal, all U.S. charges against Assange would be dropped in return for his testimony before Congress under immunity granted by the Justice Department and Congress. Trump came under pressure from Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA chief, who publicly excoriated Assange and WikiLeaks as Russian tools after WikiLeaks published some CIA documents that disclosed some ideas for ways the government could rig electronic devices so as to be able to spy on those nearby.
However, the pretext used by the Justice Department in its case was WikiLeaks' publication of low-security material, including a video in which a U.S. helicopter crew kills a group of journalists in Iraq and papers that disclosed the confidential opinions of U.S. diplomats about foreign politicians. Since that time, Assange has been the target of a witch hunt by the Deep Swamp, including trivial Swedish sex charges that were dropped but then reinstated under U.S. pressure.
A storm of criticism is arising worldwide about the Assange case -- a storm that has been fueled by Brazilian charges against Gleen Greenwald by a vengeful president, angered that crooked trial-rigging was exposed by Greenwald's publication of private messages. Like Assange, Greenwald was accused of violating cyber-security laws. Among those denouncing the Assange indictment are Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, now retired as a Republican congressman from Texas. Both Pauls are vigorous defenders of individual liberties against government intrusion and are both known as libertarians.
Among the press groups registering dismay at what they see as Trumpian tactics are:
Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, Access Now, Agência Pública, American Civil Liberties Union, ARTICLE 19, Brazil and South America, Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Association for Progressive Communications (APC).The Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned the use of cybercrime laws as a means of stifling investigative reporting, arguing that "constitutional protection" is necessary.
Brave New Films, Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji), CODEPINK, Columbia Journalism Review Committee to Protect Journalists, Cooperativa Tierra Común, Demand Progress, Derechos Digitales, Doc Society, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ExposeFacts, Fundación Acceso (Costa Rica), Fundación Ciudadania Inteligente, Fundación Datos Protegidos (Chile), Fundación Karisma Fundación Huaira (Ecuador), Fundación Vía Libre, Human Rights Watch.
IFEX IFEX-ALC IPANDETEC, Centroamérica Instituto, Vladimir Herzog International Press Institute, Intervozes National Federation of Brazilian Journalists (FENAJ), Newscoop, Pen International, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Roots Action, Sursiendo, CCD, TEDIC, Ubunteam, Community Usuarios Digitales, World Association of News Publishers, Witness.
EFF said,
Around the world, cybercrime laws are notoriously hazy. This is in part because it’s challenging to write good cybercrime laws: technology evolves quickly, our language for describing certain digital actions may be imprecise, and lawmakers may not always imagine how laws will later be interpreted.Assange's source, Chelsea Manning, is being held in a federal prison for refusing to tell a grand jury what she knows about how data was transferred to Assange -- which implies that the federal case against Assange is insecure. Manning was pardoned by President Barack Obama after seven years in a military prison for transferring the data to Assange.
And while the laws are hazy, the penalties are often severe, which makes them a dangerously big stick in the hands of prosecutors. Prosecutors can and do take advantage of this disconnection, abusing laws designed to target criminals who break into computers for extortion or theft to prosecute those engaged in harmless activities, or research—or, in this case, journalists communicating with their sources.
Sanders has blistered Trump's Justice Department for making itself the arbiter over who is a reporter and who is not. “Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution,” Sanders tweeted. “Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”
The Sanders campaign also spoke out against the Greenwald charges. Sanders' campaign co-chairperson, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said he is crafting legislation to protect journalists for being prosecuted over their work. Presumably he means U.S. journalists, such as Greenwald, living overseas.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has chastised Trump for exploiting the Assange case as a "pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday.” She called on Brazil to drop cybercrime charges against Greenwald.
Warren however has, in carefully worded statements, appeared to stick with the Clinton line that demands that Assange be punished for hurting Clinton's campaign. “Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable,” Warren has said.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or., also rebuked the Trump team on press freedom. “This is not about Julian Assange,” Wyden said. “This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information. I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”
Wyden was also very critical of the Obama administration for its secret domestic surveillance program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The following information comes primarily from The Intercept:
Data included in those documents were reported by outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian; the Obama administration had always been reluctant to indict Assange due to what it called “the New York Times problem.” There was no way to say that Assange’s action was criminal without also saying that much of what the Times and other mainstream outlets do is also against the law.
Indeed, the documents are still officially classified, meaning that anybody who discusses them, even in the context of Assange’s indictment, could themselves be accused of a crime, despite the First Amendment and the fact that the person had signed no secrecy agreement. Transparency advocates have said that the executive branch has been classifying far too much basic information — the soup of the day at the CIA’s cafeteria, for instance, could be classified.
Greenwald's media outlet, The Intercept, said of the Assange case:
If the government effectively criminalizes reporting on classified information, that gives the government the unilateral authority to determine what can and cannot be published, simply by deploying its opaque and unreviewable classification scheme.Members of Congress have been decidedly mum on the latest indictment, given the disdain in Washington for whistleblowing in general and the WikiLeaks apparatus in particular, which Democrats blame for upending Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. The Democrats however were very keen on the CIA officer who allegedly blew the whistle against Trump.
Assange critics have quibbled over characterizing him as a journalist, but press freedom advocates are alarmed at the Justice Department’s use of the Espionage Act to target someone who publishes leaked information, as opposed to targeting only the leaker. John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, has said that “Assange is no journalist,” and that the department “takes seriously the role of journalists and our democracy and we support it.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists said irrespective of how the Justice Department may characterize Assange’s role, the indictment “could chill investigative reporting.”
By Demers' statement, the Trump Justice Department is assigning the government the right to determine who is a real journalist, which in effect means the Justice Department is able and willing to license journalists -- a concept that not so long ago was anathema to U.S. news professionals.
The CPJ North America coordinator, Alexandra Ellerbeck, called the Trump team's move a "reckless assault on the First Amendment that crosses a line no previous administration has been willing to cross, and threatens to criminalize the most basic practices of reporting.”
Reached for comment at the time by The Intercept, a spokesman for Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., head of the House Judiciary Committee, and now a chief House impeachment manager, said he had nothing on the Assange matter. Similarly, the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.
Canadians imitate Pompeo, U.S. Dems with Russia smears
If you criticize the government, you must be a Russian asset, a Putin puppet.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/01/22/consortium-news-libel-notices-cse-global-news-canada-russia/
No comments:
Post a Comment