NYTimes, Bob Woodward spill key secrets, but Julian Assange should go to jail?? (3)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Crispin Miller

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 10:40:00 PM12/22/10
to newsfromu...@googlegroups.com
 
 
The NYT spills key military secrets on its front page
By Glenn Greenwald

 
In The New York Times today, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets -- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country:
Senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan's tribal areas, a risky strategy reflecting the growing frustration with Pakistan's efforts to root out militants there.
The proposal, described by American officials in Washington and Afghanistan, would escalate military activities inside Pakistan, where the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash.
The plan has not yet been approved, but military and political leaders say a renewed sense of urgency has taken hold, as the deadline approaches for the Obama administration to begin withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan.
America's clandestine war in Pakistan has for the most part been carried out by armed drones operated by the C.I.A. . . . But interviews in recent weeks revealed that on at least one occasion, the Afghans went on the offensive and destroyed a militant weapons cache.
The decision to expand American military activity in Pakistan, which would almost certainly have to be approved by President Obama himself, would amount to the opening of a new front in the nine-year-old war, which has grown increasingly unpopular among Americans. . . . [O]ne senior American officer said, "We've never been as close as we are now to getting the go-ahead to go across."
  • The officials who described the proposal and the intelligence operations declined to be identified by name discussing classified information.

Often in debates over the legitimacy of publishing classified information, the one example typically cited as the classic case of where publication of secrets is wrong is "imminent troop movements."  Even many defenders of leaks will concede it is wrong for newspapers to divulge such information.  That "troop-movement" example serves the same role as the "screaming-fire-in-a-crowded-theater" example does in free speech debates:  it's the example everyone is supposed to concede illustrates the limits on the liberty in question.   While the ground operations in Pakistan revealed by the NYT today don't quite reach that level -- since there is not yet final presidential authorization for it -- these revelations by the NYT come quite close to that:  "an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan's tribal areas."
Indeed, the NYT reporters several times acknowledge that public awareness of these operations could trigger serious harm ("inside Pakistan, [] the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash").  Note, too, that Mazzetti and Filkins did not acquire these government secrets by just passively sitting around and having them delivered out of the blue.  To the contrary:  they interviewed multiple officials both in Washington and in Afghanistan, offered several of them anonymity to induce them to reveal secrets, and even provoked officials to provide detailed accounts of past secret actions in Pakistan, including CIA-directed attacks by Afghans inside that country.  Indeed, Mazzetti told me this morning:  "We've been working on this for a little while. . . . It's been slow going.  The release of the AfPak review gave a timeliness to the story, but this has been in the works for several weeks."

In my view, the NYT article represents exactly the kind of secret information journalists ought to be revealing; it's a pure expression of why the First Amendment guarantees a free press.  There are few things more damaging to basic democratic values than having the government conduct or escalate a secret war beyond public debate or even awareness.  By exposing these classified plans, Mazzetti and Filkins did exactly what good journalists ought to do:  inform the public about important actions taken or being considered by their government which the government is attempting to conceal.
Moreover, the Obama administration has a history of deceiving the public about secret wars.  Recently revealed WikiLeaks cables demonstrated that it was the U.S. -- not Yemen -- which launched a December, 2009 air strike in that country which killed dozens of civilians; that was a covert war action about which the U.S. State Department actively misled the public, and was exposed only by WikiLeaks cables.  Worse, it was The Nation's Jeremy Scahill who first reported back in 2009 that the CIA was directing ground operations in Pakistan using both Special Forces and Blackwater operatives:  only to be smeared by the Obama State Department which deceitfully dismissed his report as "entirely false," only for recently released WikiLeaks cables to confirm that what Scahill reported was exactly true.  These kinds of leaks are the only way for the public to learn about the secret wars the Obama administration is conducting and actively hiding from the public.
The question that emerges from all of this is obvious, but also critical for those who believe Wikileaks and Julian Assange should be prosecuted for the classified information they have published:  should the NYT editors and reporters who just spilled America's secrets to the world be criminally prosecuted as well?  After all, WikiLeaks has only exposed past conduct, and never -- like the NYT just did -- published imminent covert military plans.  Moreover, WikiLeaks has never published "top secret" material, unlike what the NYT has done many times in the past (the NSA program, the SWIFT banking program) and what they quite possibly did here as well.  Mazzetti this morning said in response to my question about that:  "not sure on the classification, although I think all of the special operations activity is usually given Top Secret designation."
After all, which WikiLeaks disclosure has ever helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda as much as announcing that the U.S. intends escalated ground operations in Pakistan?  How can the acts of WikiLeaks and the NYT possibly be distinguished?  Last week, Rachel Maddow was on David Letterman's show, laughed when Letterman denounced Assange as "creepy," and -- while expressing concerns both that the U.S. Government over-classifies and doesn't safeguard its secrets with sufficient care -- disparaged WikiLeaks this way:
I think he is a hero in his own mind, which makes me pretty suspicious. ... We should not have freelancers from other countries making a decision about what gets declassified by our government. Our government should be better about it, but I don't want random Australians deciding for me. [audience laughs and cheers appreciatively].

Is that really a cogent distinction?  It's dangerous or even possibly a serious crime when one of those menacing foreigners (a "random Australian") or "freelancers" exposes U.S. government deceit and corruption, but it's acceptable and legal when true Americans or a large American media corporation (such as NBC News) does it?   I'm quite certain there are no such distinctions in the law.  Beyond that, non-"freelance" American news organizations haven't exactly covered themselves with glory when making such judgments; ask Judy Miller and Michael Gordon about that, or Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Wen Ho Lee, Steven Hatfill and so many more.  What determines whether something is a crime is the actions of the person -- not their nationality or how large of a corporation employs them.
Also, for those of you supportive of the prosecution and oppressive detention of Bradley Manning:  should the government do everything possible to discover the identity of the military and government officials who spoke with Mazzetti and Filkins about these plans?  The Obama DOJ recently revitalized an abandoned Bush-era subpoena issued to James Risen to force him (ultimately upon pain of imprisonment) to reveal his source for a story he wrote; should the Obama DOJ do the same here to Mazzetti and Filkins?  And if they do discover their sources, should those officials be arrested and prosecuted for espionage, and held in 23-hour-per-day solitary confinement for months and months while awaiting their trial? 
On some perverse level, I at least respect the intellectual consistency of those like Joe Lieberman, Rep. Pete King, and multiple Bush officials and followers who not only demand that WikiLeaks and Assange be prosecuted, but also that newspapers who do the same thing also be similarly punished.  That view is odious and dangerous, but it's the only intellectually coherent position.  By contrast, those who are cheering while the Obama DOJ tries to imprison Assange -- without also demanding that Mazzetti and Filkins occupy a cell next to him (and that their high-level sources be found and punished the way Manning is) -- are advocating quite incoherent and unprincipled positions and should ask themselves why that is.
* * * * *
Most of the American left has made a hero of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. For Assange's admirers, the embarrassment that his publication of stolen government and corporate documents produces for government policymakers, bankers or corporate executives whom they dislike more than compensates for the theft of classified or private information on a grand scale. The idea that the law in its majesty is supposed to protect the bad as well as the good apparently is rejected by those who celebrate information vandalism, as long as its victims are the State Department or big banks.
There's just one little fact missing from Lind's argument:  the identification of any laws which WikiLeaks and Assange supposedly broke.  The claim on the Left -- at least that I've heard -- is not that Assange broke the law but shouldn't be convicted because he is achieving good things.  The claim is that what he did isn't against the law at all, and that there's no way to distinguish what he did from what investigative journalists do on a daily basis.  If Lind wants to disparage the Left as renouncing the rule of law by defending WikiLeaks despite the "crimes" it's committing, he ought to at least pretend to identify what these crimes are ("information vandalism" is not a crime, nor is publishing classified information).  He doesn't, and can't, identify any because there are none.  Ironically, Lind is guilty of exactly that which he is condemning:  namely, deciding what is and is not a crime based on his likes and dislikes ("information vandalism!") rather than what the law actually says.


 
UPDATE II:  Why aren't Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, their web hosting company and various banks terminating their relationships with The New York Times, the way they all did with WikiLeaks:  not only for the NYT's publication of many of the same diplomatic and war cables published by WikiLeaks, but also for this much more serious leak today in which WikiLeaks was completely uninvolved? (h/t Lobe Log)

 
UPDATE III:  A top aide to German Prime Minister Angela Merkel today explained that Germany does not view WikiLeaks as a threat at all.  Indeed, the official, Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, said that while WikiLeaks was "irritating and annoying," the true threat comes from having governments be able to pressure private corporations (such as MasterCard, Amazon, Paypal) to terminate relationships with entities the government dislikes ("he said he was opposed to financial entities cutting off payments to WikiLeaks under pressure from Washington.  'If this occurs under pressure from the U.S. government, I don't think it is acceptable'.").   The statements from the German government follow the praise for WikiLeaks and Assange previously voiced by several world leaders, including Brazilian President Lula da Silva.  That's how mature, non-hysterical, non-exploitative political leaders respond to a disclosure group like WikiLeaks.


Published on Monday, December 20, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Wikimania and the First Amendment
by Ralph Nader

Thomas Blanton, the esteemed director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University described Washington's hyper-reaction to Wikileaks' transmission of information to some major media in various countries as "Wikimania."

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday, Blanton urged the Justice Department to cool it. Wikileaks and newspapers like The New Yorks Times and London's Guardian, he said, are publishers protected by the First Amendment. The disclosures are the first small installment of a predicted much larger
forthcoming trove of non-public information from both governments and global corporations.
The leakers inside these organizations come under different legal restrictions that those who use their freedom of speech rights to publish the leaked information.
The mad dog, homicidal demands to destroy the leaders of Wikileaks by self-styled liberal Democrat and Fox commentator, Bob Beckel, the radio and cable howlers and some members of Congress, may be creating an atmosphere of panic at the politically sensitive Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder has made very prejudicial comments pursuant to his assertion that his lawyers considering how they may prosecute Julian Assange, the Wikileaks leader.
Mr. Holder declared that both "the national security of the United States" and "the American people have been put at risk." This level of alarm was not shared by the public statements of defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of States Hillary Clinton who downplayed the impact of these disclosures.
The Attorney General, who should be directing more of his resources to the corporate crime wave in all its financial, economic and hazardous manifestations, is putting himself in a bind.
If he goes after Wikileaks too broadly using the notorious Espionage Act of 1917 and other vague laws, how is he going to deal with The New York Times and other mass media that reported the disclosures?
Consider what Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, who was head of the Office of Legal Counsel in George W. Bush's Justice Department just wrote:

"In Obama's Wars, Bob Woodward, with the obvious assistance of many top Obama administration officials, disclosed many details about top secret programs, code names, documents, meetings, and the like. I have a hard time squaring the anger the government is directing towards Wikileaks with its top officials openly violating classification rules and opportunistically revealing without authorization top secret information."
On the other hand, if Mr. Holder goes the narrow route to obtain an indictment of Mr. Assange, he will risk a public relations debacle by vindictively displaying  prosecutorial abuse (i.e. fixing the law around the enforcement bias.) Double standards have no place in the Justice Department.
Wikileaks is also creating anxiety in the corporate suites. A cover story in the December 20, 2010 issue of Forbes magazine reports that early next year a large amount of embarrassing material will be sent to the media by Wikileaks about a major U.S. bank, followed by masses of exposé material on other global corporations.
Will these releases inform the people about very bad activities by drug, oil, financial and other companies along with corruption in various countries? If so, people may find this information useful. We can only imagine what sleazy or illegal things our government has been up to that have been covered up. Soon, people may reject the those who would censor Wikileaks. Many people do want to size up what's going on inside their government in their name and with their tax dollars.
Wasn't it Jefferson who said that "information is the currency of democracy" and that, given a choice between government and a free press, he'll take the latter? Secrecy-keeping the people and Congress in the dark-is the cancer eating at the vitals of democracy.
What is remarkable about all the official hullabaloo by government officials, who leak plenty themselves, is that there never is any indictment or prosecution of government big wigs who continually suppress facts and knowledge in order to carry out very devastating actions like invading Iraq under false pretenses and covering up corporate contractors abuses. The morbid and corporate-indentured secrecy of government over the years has cost many American lives, sent Americans to illegal wars, bilked consumers of billions of dollars and harmed the safety and economic well-being of workers.
As Cong. Ron Paul said on the House floor, why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our government's failure to protect classified information? He asked his colleagues which events caused more deaths, "Lying us into war, or the release of the Wikileaks papers?"
Over-reaction by the Obama administration could lead to censoring the Internet, undermining Secretary Clinton's Internet Freedom initiative, which criticized China's controls and lauded hacktivism in that country, and divert attention from the massive over classification of documents by the Executive Branch.
A full throttle attack on Wikileaks is what the government distracters want in order to take away the spotlight of the disclosures on their misdeeds, their waste and their construction of an authoritarian corporate state.
Professor and ex-Bushite Jack Goldsmith summed up his thoughts this way: "The best thing to do....would be to ignore Assange and fix the secrecy system so this does not happen again."
That presumably is some of what Peter Zatko and his crew are now trying to do at the Pentagon's famed DARPA unit. That secret initiative may ironically undermine the First Amendment should they succeed too much in hamstringing the Internet earlier advanced by that same Pentagon unit.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel -  is, Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.


Why Shouldn't Freedom of the Press Apply to WikiLeaks?
You may not like Julian Assange, but the campaign to silence WikiLeaks should appall you


Dan Kitwood/Getty
 By Tim Dickinson
DECEMBER 15, 2010 5:07 PM EDT
Here's a thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the quarter of a million secret government cables from the State Department had been leaked, not to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, but to Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times. 

First, let's state the obvious: The Timeswould never have returned the confidential files to the Obama administration. Most likely, the newspaper would have attempted to engage with State to try to scrub life- and source- threatening details from the cables - as Assange and his lawyers did. 

And if the administration had refused to participate in that effort -- as it did with WikiLeaks? The Times would have done what any serious news organization has the imperative to do: It would have published, at a pacing of its own choosing, any cable it deemed to be in the public interest. In this digital age, it's likely the Times would have even created a massive searchable database of the cables.

The optics of the information dump would likely have been very different -- overlaid with the Times' newspaper-of-record gravitas. But the effect would have been identical: Information that the U.S. government finds embarrassing, damning, and even damaging would have seen the light of day. 

Now let's extend the thought experiment: 

How would you react if top American conservatives were today baying for Bill Keller's blood? If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had called on Keller to be prosecuted as a "high-tech terrorist"? If Sarah Palin were demanding that Keller be hunted down like a member of Al Qaeda? If Newt Gingrich were calling for the Times editor to be assassinated as an "enemy combatant." 

What if Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, had successfully pressured the Times' web hosting company to boot the newspaper off its servers? What if Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal suddenly stopped processing subscriptions for the paper?

Imagine that students at Columbia University's graduate school of international affairs had been warned not to Tweet about the New York Times if they had any hopes of ever working at the State Department. 

Imagine U.S. soldiers abroad being told that they'd be breaking the law if they read even other news outlets' coverage of the Times' exclusives. 

Imagine that the Library of Congress had simply blocked all access to the New York Times site.

You can't imagine this actually happening to the New York Times. Yet this has been has been exactly the federal and corporate response to Assange and WikiLeaks. 

The behavior is outrageous on its face and totalitarian in its impulse. Indeed, we should all be alarmed at the Orwellian coloring of the Obama administration's official response to the publishing of the cables: 

"President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal."

Secrecy is openness. What the fuck?! 

Listen: You don't have to approve of Assange or his political views; you can even believe he's a sex criminal. It doesn't matter. What's at stake here isn't the right of one flouncy Australian expat to embarrass a superpower. It's freedom of the press. And it's a dark day for journalists everywhere when the imperatives of government secrecy begin to triumph over our First Amendment.
main.jpg
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages