Chris Hedges On 'The Criminalization Of Journalism'

Jaisal Noor, producer for The Real Network News, interviews the always plain-spoken Chris Hedges. I started to say "the indefatigable Chris Hedges," but honestly, Hedges looks as tired as I feel these days. It must be a terrible burden that he carries, largely on our behalf and for our education. Be that as it may, Hedges addresses the detention... face it, the criminal arrest... of David Miranda by British officials at London's Heathrow Airport, charging him with "espionage" and "terrorism" — i.e., journalism embarrassing to officialdom on both sides of the Atlantic. The interview is published both as a video and in print; it is worth viewing both forms. A couple of quotations:

...

NOOR: So, Chris, let's start off by getting your response to the British government accusing David Miranda, the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, who often collaborates with Greenwald, of, quote, espionage and terrorism and saying those were some of the reasons why they held him for hours on end at Heathrow without letting him speak to his lawyer or anyone else.

HEDGES: Well, they didn't just told him. They seized all of his electronic equipment--his computer, his phone--because they were looking for some of the files that [Miranda's partner Glenn] Greenwald has been using to publish his stories that were leaked by Edward Snowden. And this is just part of the criminalization of journalism which has taken place not only within the United States but within countries like Great Britain as well.

NOOR: Britain doesn't have the same safeguards for journalists as places like the U.S. do. ...

HEDGES: Well, there aren't any safeguards left within the United States as well. ... the security and surveillance state has the phone--all of the electronic communications of every journalist in this country. They've used the Espionage Act aggressively seven times, the last time being against Snowden, to make sure nobody does talk to the press to expose the inner workings of power.

So we once had, at least legally, more protection as journalists than were provided to journalists in Great Britain. But all of it's gone up in smoke, both here and there. ...

NOOR: Now, the NSA and its defenders, they cite 54 terrorist plots they have been able to supposedly thwart due to this massive spying. But a recent report by ProPublica found that the NSA was only able to provide evidence in four of those cases. Why do you think the NSA is not providing additional evidence for those remaining 50 cases?

HEDGES: Well, because they're lying. ...

What's interesting is that a lot of times when they lie, they get caught because of courageous whistleblowers like Snowden who expose their [lies]. ...

...

Please read and/or watch the rest. The interview is short and to the point.

A mere few years ago I began to wonder whether the United States could survive the beating it has taken at the hands of Americans who truly do not care for its founding principles as long as they control the nation's power... Dick Cheney, the PNAC gang, Karl Rove, etc. I don't wonder anymore: in the words of Leonard Cohen, "The war is over. The good guys lost." The Bill of Rights... especially the First Amendment's freedom of speech and press... is nothing but pen-scratchings on parchment; there is no substance to those freedoms in the era of presidents George W. Bush Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. To parody the title of another Hedges book, war is a farce that gives the U.S. beatings.

It was great while it lasted. I feel I owe an apology to Thomas Jefferson and to my father, both of whom did their damnedest to create and then preserve a nation where things were done right — thank goodness neither of them survived to see what my generation has done to it.

---

AFTERTHOUGHT: A couple of days ago I began reading Jeremy Scahill's new book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. I have not read Scahill's other book, but I am reminded by his first chapter of Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, a book which I went out and bought (used, of course) *after* I finished reading the library copy. One difference: the Scahill book is immense; you could use it to exercise your arms, pumping pulp instead of pumping iron. But the content is just as depressing as Mayer's excellent work. I may not be able to finish it...

Manning Verdict (Apparently Conviction) To Be Announced Today On An Historic Day That Is No Coincidence - UPDATED

Courtroom Sketch of Manning
by Clark Stoeckley
via Kevin Gosztola

Kevin Gosztola of FDL, present for most of Manning's two-month trial, will announce the details when the judge rules this afternoon. This link is to Gosztola's preface, backgrounder, setup, call it what you will. He begins by noting the historical significance of today's date chosen by the judge, clearly no coincidence:

A military judge is set to issue a verdict in the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier prosecuted for disclosing information to WikiLeaks, [today] in the early afternoon. The verdict will come on the same day that America passed its first whistleblower protection law.

The law passed by the Continental Congress on July 30, 1778, declared that it was the “duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other the inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by an officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”

This law emphasizes the crux of the matter: whistleblowing is a duty of everyone in military or civil service to the US. It is not discretionary; it is obligatory.

In the 1778 case, the man on whom the whistle was blown was powerful, and immediately engaged in retaliation against the whistleblower. Some things start early and never change; retaliation against whistleblowers is one of them. Unlike the early case, it is likely that retaliation against Manning, who reported some activities that are manifestly illegal, will be allowed to take place... with the active cooperation of the military system of justice. Given what has been reported to date, I am convinced that Manning's trial... from his year-long abusive detention with no opportunities to defend himself, through to the military judge's repeated rejection of defense's introduction of potentially exculpatory evidence... is a drumhead, a trial whose outcome is predetermined, in this case by no less than the President of the United States.

Here's Gosztola on Manning's actions:

Manning did not go to Congress with his information but had he gone to Congress it is a virtual guarantee that he would have lost his security clearance for trying to provide information to Congress that included evidence of torture and other war crimes. The world would never have seen the information he disclosed to WikiLeaks.

Not every one of the more than 700,000 documents he released contained evidence of a major crime, and yet a statement Manning read in court February 28 indicates his decisions to release certain sets of information were that of a classic whistleblower. Yet, he faces a potential sentence of life in prison without parole if convicted of “aiding the enemy.”

Manning was categorized by prosecutors as "anarchist," "hacker" and "traitor." He will be convicted of every charge and sentenced to life without parole, that is, if the government doesn't renege on its promise not to seek the death penalty, which would not surprise me. Manning is being made an example of, indirectly by your man Barack Obama. Whistleblowing and leaking, both essential to journalism in pursuit of illegal government activity, will likely dwindle to nonexistence after Manning's verdict. And Manning may never see the light of day again.

It was a great country while it lasted...

UPDATE 7/30/2013 6:00pm EDT - Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge... "aiding the enemy" ... but convicted of 19 other charges, mostly under the ancient W.W. I-era Espionage Act, created in its own day specifically to harass, discredit and disable antiwar activists, and a point of contention thought to be at odds with the First Amendment... until now. Please read Kevin Gosztola's post What the Verdict in Bradley Manning’s Trial Means for Whistleblowers. This is a day in which the phrase "military justice" may well have become an oxymoron as surely as "military intelligence." As a nation we should be ashamed, not only of this result but of the deplorable actions of the court which brought it forth.