Journalists critical of the U.S. are being categorized as terrorists
The U.S. government is targeting whistleblowers in order to keep its hypocrisy secret … so that it can keep on doing the opposite of what it tells other countries to do.
As part of this effort to suppress information which would reveal the government’s hypocrisy, the American government – like the British government – is treating journalists as terrorists.
Journalism is not only being criminalized in America, but investigative reporting is actually treated like terrorism.
The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.
Journalism is not only being criminalized in America, but investigative reporting is actually treated like terrorism.
After the government’s spying on the Associated Press made it clear to everyone that the government is trying to put a chill journalism, the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek tweeted:
Serious idea. Instead of calling it Obama’s war on whistleblowers, let’s just call it what it is: Obama’s war on journalism.
The Pentagon recently smeared USA Today reporters because they investigated illegal Pentagon propaganda
Reporters covering the Occupy protests were targeted for arrest
The Bush White House worked hard to smear CIA officers, bloggers and anyone else who criticized the Iraq war
In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of the bank’s wrongdoing, the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this)
And the American government has been instrumental in locking up journalists in America (and here), Yemen and elsewhere for the crime of embarrassing the U.S. government.
It’s Only Tyrannical When Others Do It
The U.S. State Department correctly noted in April:
Some governments are too weak or unwilling to protect journalists and media outlets. Many others exploit or create criminal libel or defamation or blasphemy laws in their favor. They misuse terrorism laws to prosecute and imprison journalists. They pressure media outlets to shut down by causing crippling financial damage. They buy or nationalize media outlets to suppress different viewpoints. They filter or shut down access to the Internet. They detain and harass – and worse.
And the State Department rightly announced last year:
We are deeply concerned about the Ethiopian government’s conviction of a number of journalists and opposition members under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. This practice raises serious questions and concerns about the intent of the law, and about the sanctity of Ethiopians’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
The arrest of journalists has a chilling effect on the media and on the right to freedom of expression. We have made clear in our ongoing human rights dialogue with the Ethiopian government that freedom of expression and freedom of the media are fundamental elements of a democratic society.
As Secretary Clinton has said, “When a free media is under attack anywhere, all human rights are under attack everywhere. That is why the United States joins its global partners in calling for the release of all imprisoned journalists in every country across the globe and for the end to intimidation.”
Maybe we should start with the U.S. and UK?
British authorities claimed the domestic partner of reporter Glenn Greenwald was involved in "terrorism" when he tried to carry documents from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden through a London airport in August, according to police and intelligence documents.
"Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security," according to the document.
"We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives," the document continued. "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause.
This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."
Miranda was not charged with any offense, although British authorities said in August they had opened a criminal investigation after initially examining materials they seized from him. They did not spell out the probe's objectives.
A key hearing on Miranda's legal challenge is scheduled for next week. The new details of how and why British authorities decided to act against him, including extracts from police and MI5 documents, were made public during a preparatory hearing earlier this week.
The ACLU’s Ben Wizner sums up the American and British governments’ attitude towards journalists:
Relax, everyone. You’re not terrorists unless you try “to influence a government.” Just type what you’re told.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-criminalization-of-independent-journalism-truth-in-media-categorized-as-terrorism/5356626
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/u-s-points-out-that-only-tyrants-treat-journalists-as-terrorists-then-does-it-itself.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-uk-nsa-idUSBRE9A013O20131101
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131102/23045925107/uk-officials-argue-that-david-miranda-was-fact-terrorist.shtml
ACLU report: Spying on free speech nearly at cold war level:
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Spyfiles_2_0.pdf
Rutherford Institute filed a First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of political activists:
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a First Amendment lawsuit challenging a regulation issued by the U.S. Supreme Court which broadly prohibits speech and expression in the plaza fronting the Supreme Court’s building. The regulation was issued in response to a June 2013 ruling in another lawsuit filed by Rutherford Institute attorneys in which a federal district court declared a Congressional statute banning expressive activities on the Supreme Court plaza “unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.” In the complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of seven political activists, including a veterans rights advocate and anti-death penalty protesters, Institute attorneys allege that the Supreme Court’s attempt to reinstate the prohibition on speech on the public grounds fronting its building runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom speech and is overbroad and unduly vague.
“There are a good many things that are repugnant to the Constitution right now—mass surveillance of Americans, roadside strip searches, forcible DNA extractions, SWAT team raids, civil commitments for criticizing the government, etc.—but for the U.S. Supreme Court to overtly prohibit expressive activity on its grounds in defiance of a federal court ruling declaring it a free speech zone shows exactly how perverse our so-called system of justice has become,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead.
The plaza area in front of the Supreme Court is oval in shape and approximately 252 feet in length, is open 24-hours a day and is no different than other traditional public fora such as parks and sidewalks. The plaza has historically been used for First Amendment activities, including press conferences by attorneys and litigants, tourists conversations about matters before the Supreme Court, and filming of scenes for movies. Nevertheless, a Congressional statute dating back to the 1950’s made it unlawful to “stand . . . or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”
In January 2012, The Rutherford Institute filed a lawsuit, Hodge v. Talkin, on behalf of a political activist who was charged with violating the statute for silently standing on the plaza with a sign six square feet in size expressing opposition to police brutality alleging that the ban on expressive activity on the plaza violated the First Amendment. In June 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad, facially unconstitutional and void. Just two days after this ruling, the Supreme Court adopted Regulation 7, which attempts to reinstate the restrictions struck down by Judge Howell by banning any “demonstration” on the Supreme Court grounds, which is broadly defined by Regulation 7 to include all forms of conduct communicating views or grievances that might draw onlookers.
In challenging the new ban on behalf of activists who desire to engage in speech activities on the plaza of the Supreme Court, Institute attorneys allege that Regulation 7 is contrary to the constitutional principles set forth in Judge Howell’s ruling..
https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-04-2013_Reg-7_Complaint.pdf