I recently published a column on how Barack Obama has publicly assumed many of the powers that were once cited as the basis for the investigation and attempted impeachment of Richard Nixon. One of those areas was the Obama Administration’s crackdown on journalists. This week Attorney General Eric Holder appears to have yet again added to this ignoble record. It appears that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. This disclosure follows another recent disclosure that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted conservative groups associated with the Tea Party. Yet, once again, most Democrats remain silent in a type of cult of personality where principle is discarded in favor of loyalty to the President.
The spying on reporters by the Obama Administration included outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters. The seizure covered general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn. The Justice Department showed no restraint or concern, even including the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. It now appears that in a few years historians could well be saying the Nixon was perfectly Obamaesque in his abuses.
AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt has written a letter to Holder objecting to the spying, noting that “[t]here can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” I would be equally upset with the mere fact of the spying as opposed to its breadth.
The spying may be part of a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. AP agreed to hold the story after an objection from the Administration but ultimately ran the story disclosing a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. While working with the Administration in holding the story, the Administration apparently was moving to spy on five reporters and an editor who were involved in the story.
Holder would have to have personally approved the subpoenas under Justice Department regulations. However, it is not enough to again criticize Holder (who has assembled one of the most abusive records on civil liberties in our history). Obama is well aware of the objections by civil libertarians and personally approved such decisions as promising CIA officials that they would not be investigated for torture and the kill list policy.
What is most striking about this story is the sense of complete immunity and lack of concern shown by the Administration. That sense of impunity has developed over four years as Democrats have gone into radio silence over abuses by the Administration from Obama’s “kill list” policy to other rollbacks on civil liberties. There will come a day when this president is no longer in office and many Democrats and Liberals will be faced with the imperial presidency that he created in the hands of someone they do not revere. When that day comes, it will be hard to climb over the mountain of hypocrisy to find a principled ground for criticism.
Source: CNN
Swarthmore: Rand Paul is a dope, and a hypocritical one at that. I think Warren would have no problem mopping the floor with Rand in a debate, I think she would win the general election easily.
Also, I expect Hillary to have health problems before long; and if she mismanaged her campaign as badly as last time, she might lose to Rand. Hillary comes with baggage (multiple falsehoods on the campaign trail, stiffing creditors, exorbitant and pointless expenses from the previous campaign, a failed bid at health care, etc) that Rand Paul doesn’t carry and would exploit, and he is to most (not me) a credible fiscal conservative and Constitutionalist.
Warren has a better chance against him, and a better resume than Hillary, and a better reputation with far less baggage.
If Warren revealed she stayed out of the primary out of deference to Hillary, I would be sorely disappointed in Warren for not letting the Democratic primary voters decide; and by her decision handing the Democratic nomination to a candidate that would probably lose. The best thing she can do for the country is to ditch deference and run, and let the primary decide. If I found out that Warren thinks HIllary would be the better president, I would lose a lot of respect for Warren’s intelligence.
Tony,
Yep.
“Obama administration is looking like a Daley Machine administration” (nick)
Bingo, bingo, bingo!! This is why SwM and I had trouble voting for him in the first place way back in 2008. And, don’t forget, Hillary also emerged from the Chicago culture (she first got involved doing canvas work in South Chicago during the 1960 campaign.)
BTW, when looking at Hillary, don’t forget Anne Wexler.
http://observer.com/2013/05/just-a-crook-pentagon-papers-lawyer-thinks-obama-is-worse-than-nixon/ “Just a Crook? Pentagon Papers Lawyer Thinks Obama Is Worse Than Nixon”
More from Greenwald with some excellent links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/obama-civil-liberties-sea-change (“The major sea change in media discussions of Obama and civil liberties”, “The controversies over the IRS and especially the AP phone records appear to have long-lasting effects” )
Bushs IRS, FBI, CIA investigated critics of his administration
… http://www.alternet.org/bush-used-irs-fbi-cia-and-secret-service-go-after-opponents-where-was-fox-and-gop-outrage …
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/clinton-paul-new-hampshire-2016-poll-90652.html Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are the frontrunners. Warren will run if Hillary doesn’t .O’Malley is last but he is coming off a very good legislative session in Maryland with the passage of gay marriage, some gun control measures, and the legalization of medical marijuana. Meanwhile Paul is in Iowa courting evangelicals. If I were Hillary I would forward to campaigning against Paul.
“I would not vote for or contribute to Hillary; at the moment I would contribute a few hundred bucks to an Elizabeth Warren campaign about ten minutes after she announced an intent to run in the primary, and I would vote for her in the primary and general election.
I will also point out Obama was barely a senator when he announced, just like Warren. This would not be an unprecedented move; for a first female President Warren would be my choice.” -Tony C.
Hear, hear.
iconoclast: We kind of like that, too. I don’t see that there’s anybody on the horizon pure enough for some of the commenters here today.
On the horizon? I would not vote for or contribute to Hillary; at the moment I would contribute a few hundred bucks to an Elizabeth Warren campaign about ten minutes after she announced an intent to run in the primary, and I would vote for her in the primary and general election.
I will also point out Obama was barely a senator when he announced, just like Warren. This would not be an unprecedented move; for a first female President Warren would be my choice.
Here’s an excerpt from an excellent article by Daniel Ellsberg, “Secrecy and National Security Whistleblowing” (link to follow — I’m having trouble posting again)
“But the habits and reflexes of an experienced national security bureaucrat will be strong and reliable with respect to observing the “real” rules, against revelations to potential adversaries or rivals of the policies or agency or bosses one serves: whether in other agencies (or within one’s own), or Congress, or the public. (Keeping information from foreign adversaries-the official rationale for the whole secrecy system-is actually a less salient consideration for the larger part of the classified material, especially that which is “only” top secret or lower. Since foreign states neither control the agency’s budget nor do they vote in elections or in Congress, they are not the parties who must be excluded from much of the most “sensitive” information.) .
Thus, a readiness and ability to keep secrets reliably is a prerequisite for these highly prestigious and powerful positions in our political system. But in this area as throughout human endeavor, it is a fundamental truth that wrongful secret-keeping is the most widespread form of complicity in wrong-doing. It involves many more people both within and outside an organization that is acting wrongfully than those who give wrongful orders or who directly implement them, though it includes these.
Since wrong-doing virtually always requires both secrecy and lies, and further secrets and lies to protect the secrets and lies, the wrongful operation-especially in a regime that approaches democracy–is commonly highly vulnerable to a breach of secrecy by any one of the many who share the secret. Yet typically in the national security field (and to a striking degree even in corporate and private associations without a formal apparatus of secrecy) even the “weakest links” do not break. No one tells.
And this is true even as important laws are being knowingly violated, or when many lives have been and more will be harmed by ignorance of the information being withheld. Think of the many situations in which whistleblowing was either wholly absent or very belated: the internal buildup to the Vietnam and Iraq wars; the tobacco industry; Vioxx; the accounting scandals of Enron or Worldcom, with its widespread effects on retirement accounts; child abuse by Catholic priests and cover-up by bishops; NSA warrantless wiretaps and White House-directed torture and kidnapping, after 9-11.
In each of these cases, there were many insiders aware of the abuses and danger to outsiders, indeed ultimately to the organization itself. Yet there was virtually total silence, for years, to outside authorities or the public, total lack of warning to potential victims. Careerist incentives undoubtedly explain most of this: but all of it? The extraordinary lack of any break at all in the discipline of secrecy, no matter the human stakes?
The examples above make clear that this is not only a phenomenon of government, or of the national security bureaucracy. The following reflections derive from my own experience in that bureaucracy, where large-scale unauthorized disclosures have been very rare (the Pentagon Papers, and the recent Wikileaks releases: two cases in forty years). But they apply as well, in some degree, to any organizations or groups that effectively demand some secret-keeping as a condition of membership. That is, to nearly every human group.”
An excellent piece, as is the interview today with Chris Hedges (link above):
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/secrecy-national-security-whistleblowing
Secrecy and National Security Whistleblowing
by Daniel Ellsberg on January 8, 2013
Excerpt:
But the habits and reflexes of an experienced national security bureaucrat will be strong and reliable with respect to observing the “real” rules, against revelations to potential adversaries or rivals of the policies or agency or bosses one serves: whether in other agencies (or within one’s own), or Congress, or the public. (Keeping information from foreign adversaries-the official rationale for the whole secrecy system-is actually a less salient consideration for the larger part of the classified material, especially that which is “only” top secret or lower. Since foreign states neither control the agency’s budget nor do they vote in elections or in Congress, they are not the parties who must be excluded from much of the most “sensitive” information.) .
Thus, a readiness and ability to keep secrets reliably is a prerequisite for these highly prestigious and powerful positions in our political system. But in this area as throughout human endeavor, it is a fundamental truth that wrongful secret-keeping is the most widespread form of complicity in wrong-doing. It involves many more people both within and outside an organization that is acting wrongfully than those who give wrongful orders or who directly implement them, though it includes these.
Since wrong-doing virtually always requires both secrecy and lies, and further secrets and lies to protect the secrets and lies, the wrongful operation-especially in a regime that approaches democracy–is commonly highly vulnerable to a breach of secrecy by any one of the many who share the secret. Yet typically in the national security field (and to a striking degree even in corporate and private associations without a formal apparatus of secrecy) even the “weakest links” do not break. No one tells.
And this is true even as important laws are being knowingly violated, or when many lives have been and more will be harmed by ignorance of the information being withheld. Think of the many situations in which whistleblowing was either wholly absent or very belated: the internal buildup to the Vietnam and Iraq wars; the tobacco industry; Vioxx; the accounting scandals of Enron or Worldcom, with its widespread effects on retirement accounts; child abuse by Catholic priests and cover-up by bishops; NSA warrantless wiretaps and White House-directed torture and kidnapping, after 9-11.
In each of these cases, there were many insiders aware of the abuses and danger to outsiders, indeed ultimately to the organization itself. Yet there was virtually total silence, for years, to outside authorities or the public, total lack of warning to potential victims. Careerist incentives undoubtedly explain most of this: but all of it? The extraordinary lack of any break at all in the discipline of secrecy, no matter the human stakes?
The examples above make clear that this is not only a phenomenon of government, or of the national security bureaucracy. The following reflections derive from my own experience in that bureaucracy, where large-scale unauthorized disclosures have been very rare (the Pentagon Papers, and the recent Wikileaks releases: two cases in forty years). But they apply as well, in some degree, to any organizations or groups that effectively demand some secret-keeping as a condition of membership. That is, to nearly every human group.
End of excerpt.
There’s a whopper of a secret… One of these days. One of these days.
http://youtu.be/pq5q944FRto
Chris Hedges on Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/15/chris_hedges_monitoring_of_ap_phones
“The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges join us to discuss what could mark the most significant government intrusion on freedom of the press in decades. The Justice Department has acknowledged seizing the work, home and cellphone records used by almost 100 reporters and editors at the Associated Press. The phones targeted included the general AP office numbers in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Hartford, Connecticut, and the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. The action likely came as part of a probe into the leaks behind an AP story on the U.S. intelligence operation that stopped a Yemen-based al-Qaeda bombing plot on a U.S.-bound airplane. Hedges, a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and former New York Times reporter, calls the monitoring “one more assault in a long series of assaults against freedom of information and freedom of the press.”
Highlighting the Obama administration’s targeting of government whistleblowers, Hedges adds: “Talk to any investigative journalist who must investigate the government and they will tell you that there is a deep freeze. People are terrified of speaking, because they are terrified of going to jail.””
“It seems to be terrible intrusion on the freedom of the press,” says Ramsey Clark, the U.S. attorney general from 1967 to 1969. “I don’t see how the press can operate effectively if the public and people that talk to the press have to assume that Big Brother is listening in or can seize the conversations they engage in.” -Ramsey Clark on Democracy Now
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/14/former_attorney_general_ramsey_clark_decries
Letter to Holder from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/media-coalition-letter-of-protest-to-attorney-general-eric-holder/148/
“The Department’s actions demonstrate that a strong federal shield law is needed to protect reporters and their newsgathering materials in a court of law where the adversarial process ensures a fair weighing of the issues. While Congress should provide thatremedial legislation, there is still much that this Department can do to mitigate thedamage it has caused.It should immediately return the telephone toll records obtained and destroy all copies, asrequested by The Associated Press. If it refuses, it should at the very least segregatethese records and prohibit any further use of them at this time. It should explain howgovernment lawyers overreached so egregiously in this matter and describe what theDepartment will do to mitigate the impact of these actions. Additionally, the Departmentmust also publicly disclose more information on who has had access to the records and what protections were taken to ensure that information unrelated to a specific criminalinvestigation was not utilized by any Department employees. This undertaking isconsistent with § 50.10(g)(4) (“Any information obtained as a result of a subpoena issued for telephone toll records shall be closely held so as to prevent disclosure of theinformation to unauthorized persons or for improper purposes.”)
And finally, the Department should announce whether it has served any other pending news media-related subpoenas that have not yet been disclosed.”
—–
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-ap-responds-to-doj-163983.html “The AP responds to the DOJ”
Has Holder resigned yet….
After we finish with King George, we need to put in measures to prevent all of this from happening ever again. Our leaders should always fear us. They should fear the consequences of becoming corrupt instead of safely hiding in ivory towers
That is true RWL
What I mean is Obama is giving them the ability to do so.
They keep pushing us and pushing us. It is time to push back and put them back in their place. We are long overdue in resetting the bar.
Obama must be impeached and removed from office.
Definitions:
Civil disturbance.
Group acts of
violence and disorder prejudicial to
public law and order.
c) Governs all DoD Component
planning for and participation in
Defense support of civilian law
enforcement activities, including
domestic emergencies and civil
disturbance operations (CDO) (formerly
referred to as ‘‘military assistance for
civil disturbances’’).
(d) Applies to National Guard (NG)
personnel only in title 10, U.S.C., status
only.
(e) Applies to civilian employees of
the DoD Components and the activities
of DoD contractors performed in support
of the DoD Components.
(f) Does not apply to:
(1) Counternarcotics activities.
(2) Assistance to foreign law
enforcement officials.
(3) The Defense Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Components, excep
Obama is preparing for Revolution. Laugh all you wish. Just read the bill. Just signed yesterday
this is just a small part of it
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/pdf/2013-07802.pdf
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 182
Armed forces, Law enforcement.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 182 is
added to read as follows:
PART 182—DEFENSE SUPPORT OF
CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES
Sec.
182.1 Purpose.
182.2 Applicability and scope.
182.3 Definitions.
182.4 Policy.
182.5 Responsibilities.
182.6 Procedures
Civil disturbance.
Group acts of
violence and disorder prejudicial to
public law and order.
Civilian law enforcement official.
An
officer or employee of a civilian Federal,
State, local, and tribal law enforcement
agency with responsibility for
enforcement of the laws within the
jurisdiction of that agency.
DoD personnel.
Federal military
officers and enlisted personnel and
civilian employees of the Department of
Defense.
Domestic emergencies.
Emergencies
affecting the public welfare and
occurring within the 50 states, District
of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, U.S. possessions and territories, or
any political subdivision thereof, as a
result of enemy attack, insurrection,
civil disturbance, earthquake, fire, flood,
or other public disasters or equivalent
emergencies that endanger life and
property or disrupt the usual process of
government. Domestic emergencies
include civil defense emergencies, civil
disturbances, major disasters, and
natural disasters
Alex said: “Obama is preparing for Revolution.”
It’s not Obama. It’s the Elites. Obama is just 1 person selected, not elected, by the Elites, to be a symbol to keep the ‘bewildred masses’ socially controlled (I.e. as long as we-the-people are focusing on Obama, playing their game nonpartisan or partisan politics, the Elites will continue to keep us from coming together as one to change this country).