NYT’s Selective Press Prosecution Outrage Doesn’t Include WikiLeaks

As a follow up to yesterday afternoon’s decision in the WikiLeaks grand jury subpoena case, it is, shall we say, interesting that the New York Times today comes out with and editorial slamming democracies that use secret evidence and maneuvers to prosecute journalists.

The editorial is titled No Way to Run a Democracy and it doesn’t spend one word of it on the rabid use of just those tactics in relation to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange (See here and here). Nor has there been any comparable outrage over the US actions against WikiLeaks journalists in any other NYT effort and/or article.

Now, make no mistake, the plight of investigative journalists in Turkey under threat from the administration of Prime Minister Erdogan is extremely troubling, and it is commendable that the Gray Lady has called it out. But it does make you wonder where the same outrage is in relation to the First Amendment eviscerating effort of the US Department of Justice toward WikiLeaks and Assange. An investigation which could, and if it is taken to its logical conclusion, should involve the Times itself.

Maybe it is because Bill Keller reached some agreement with the DOJ not to trash them in return for DOJ laying off the NYT during one of his endless tete a tetes with them over quashing news reporting, maybe Keller and the Times are fearful that they don’t have some kind of secret agreement with the DOJ, maybe it is the product of the merging of the media and government in the US, or maybe it is because of Keller’s irrational and unprofessional extreme dislike of, and contempt for, the “dirty” Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

Whatever the reason, the stridence against the Erdogan government actions contrasted with the silence toward the domestic Obama government actions is telling.

image_print
    • lareineblanche says:

      Ha ! Studying and displaying the hypocrisy of the MSM is a full time job, if one so chooses. It is a veritable cornucopia of material, and it seems they never tire of providing it.

  1. NMvoiceofreason says:

    If they ARE really prosecutors – they are absolutely immune. If they prosecute the Gambino syndicate, but not the Gannett syndicate, you have no basis to complain. If they argue stridently that the Associated Press syndicate should not be prosecuted, but the Wikileaks syndicate should, or just don’t say anything about it at all, they are entitled to make that call. In fact, they are the only ones who can, since only they have the facts, only they know the truth.

    Just remember, you don’t really have any state or federal rights. Really, you don’t. If you are not before a court with a case that involves those rights, they don’t really exist. They can only be manifested and enforced by a court – and only if the court chooses to do so.

    Our unelected officials deserve every bit as much respect as our elected officials. So when they say “these people are guilty” or remain silent as to the guilt of others – you should get back in line and show some respect.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    But, but, but WikiLeaks is a bunch of pyjama-clad hippie bloggers. Bill Keller’s empathy extends only to traditional journalists such as he was and might employ. It’s a cause celebre for Wild Bill, hypocritical old fart that he is.

    Mind you, virtually every one of his top reporters and OpEd page commentators blog and twitter, I’ll bet even sometimes from bed or bath. David Brooks just started a new blog to push his new book about neurological discoveries and emotional understanding, topics that Bobo understands about as well as the unemployed in small-town Pennsylvania.

    Mind, even Wild Bill might be up in arms if his reporters were routinely strip-searched at airports and had their PDA’s, computers, cellphones, notebooks, briefcases and luggage taken away and copied or kept every time they passed US customs. It might tend to stifle informants communicating with them, which would cause a slight blip in newsworthy events becoming news.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I read it. I would put the emphasis on grudging; he sounds like a 1970’s suburban mayor accepting that school busing is inevitable, however undesirable.

  3. EternalVigilance says:

    the stridence against the Erdogan government actions contrasted with the silence toward the domestic Obama government actions is telling predictably hypocritical.

    ftfy

  4. Gitcheegumee says:

    The reference in the above thread to the merging of media and government reminded me (again ) of a book salon EW hosted (hostessed?)with Tim Shorrock*,on the heels of the WaPo piece regarding the proliferation of intelligence contracting by the government since 9/11.

    One of the many topics discussed was the fusion centers ,and the increase of info sharing between corporations(including banks), police and government- info that most citizens would consider to be private and privileged.How many stories has the Times done on this?

    (Wouldn’t want to lose that “special” access,now would one?) Just ruminating,but I wonder if there are special media perks to sitting on stories ?

    Like maybe certain tax advantages? Jus’ wonderin’……..

    * FDL Talks Intelligence Contracting with Tim Shorrock | EmptywheelJul 21, 2010… Spies for Hire–for a book salon two years ago. … Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, …
    emptywheel.firedoglake.com/…/fdl-talks-intelligence-contracting-with-tim- shorrock/

    (Coincidentally enough, Shorrock is hosting a book salon this afternoon over at FDL.)

  5. bobschacht says:

    Geez, its time for March Madness, but no Trash Talk? Or are our Powers That Be just not interested in College BB? Hey, right now, seldom-heard-from Michigan is challenging Ohio State and the Man Mountain Sullinger(?)in the Big Ten semi-finals, and right now, they’re down only 2 points halfway through the second half. And the top-five ranked Lady college BB teams Baylor and Texas A&M just finished a big fight in the Big Twelve finals. When will Daniele Adams come out against Baylor? They’ve really handcuffed her.

    Bob in AZ

  6. bobschacht says:

    Geez, I just saw an Ohio State guy sky so high for a rebound that I think his *waistband* was over the rim! Man, he was Airborne! (He got the rebound, too.)

    Bob in AZ

  7. PJEvans says:

    Maybe the Gray Lady ought to remove the beam from her eye, before she complains loudly about the dust in someone else’s eye.
    (In other words, they’re with a blackened pot, talking about the kettle being dirty.)

  8. Teddy Partridge says:

    Given the way the Bush Administration pressured the NYT — successfully past the 2004 re-election campaign — to hold secret the warrantless wiretapping underway, I wonder what Team Obama is asking Keller to keep secret now?

    Surely there’s some real crap they want to get past 2012.

  9. ondelette says:

    Yeah, well, the New York Times also wrote a laudatory opinion on the Patent Reform Bill. But then, so did FDL (News Roundup March 8th):

    The Senate actually passed their patent reform bill today. As I understand it the big change puts the US on par with the rest of the world in how patents are created, and it represents the triumph of the high-tech industry over the pharmaceuticals, who thought the patent system was fine because it worked for them.

    So what if it completely screws the little guy solitary inventor in favor of big corporations with good datamining departments and in-house patent lawyers, thereby stifling creativity, small startup growth and favoring huge vertically integrated monopolies during a job crisis?

    Selective outrage is always relative.

    • dakine01 says:

      You realize I assume that FDL is a place where diverse views are offered by writers and not everyone always agrees with everyone else on some things?

      Although I’m not real sure what your comment is supposed to be portraying about the point of bmaz’s post, since The Roundup is written by David Dayen, over whom bmaz has zero control whatsoever.

      And as it is, Dayen’s point is that there was a change for once that didn’t favor Big PhRMA

      So what exactly are you trying to accuse bmaz/FDL/David Dayen of?

      • ondelette says:

        I’m making an analogy. I’m just sick of the “Hey, you didn’t complain about this!” posts, when it’s obvious it can be done to anyone. So I did it to bmaz. That’s all.

        It’s a paradigm. I find it a particularly weak one. All human rights abuses should get complained about, so the fact that the Times complained about Ergodan is actually correct from a human rights point of view. That they should complain about the abuse you want them to complain about? Okay, but then you are immediately open to complaints about whatever abuse you don’t complain about, too.

        Like the patent issue. I chose it because it’s a real issue, with a real complaint, that someone here (David Dayen, you’re correct) did get on the wrong side of in my opinion — but really in any opinion that would take the same side he’s taking in Wisconsin, so similar to the Gray Lady enough to make the analogy — but deliberately so far afield of what bmaz was writing about as to make the parallel.

        So maybe you didn’t like the way I drew my analogy, or maybe you just don’t like my point, or maybe something else. But I wanted to make that point, so I wrote what I wrote. Don’t lecture me, I knew what I was doing and did precisely what I needed to for the analogy.

          • ondelette says:

            Whatever. You didn’t cover the patents though. How can you say you’re for the little guy at all? And using language like that! If I used that language, the Emptywheel censor would delete me. You must be from the high muckymuck mandarinate of lawyer beings. You hypocrite.

            • dakine01 says:

              So patents is the issue to determine if someone is “for the little guy” nowadays? To be honest, if I thought anything about patents over the last few decades, it has been with the belief that the deck has been stacked against the “little guy” all along.

              As far as I know, making a direct, declarative sentence that did not personally insult you is well within the bounds at emptywheel and the rest of the FDL partners.

              And no, I am not a lawyer. Nor am a hypocrite for thinking that your analogy was a tiny bit flawed and strawman.

            • bmaz says:

              Well, you know, that can be arranged right quick if you want. And we didn’t “cover the patents” because, first off, it is nowhere near the subject of this post, nor any other previously, and we do not cater to your personal whims (a discussion we have had previously I might add). There is MyFDL for that, feel free to use it. And do not mistake “hypocrisy” here for obstreperousness from your chair.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                I see our little crepes suzettes have soured. Plenty of other voices at the bistros, brasseries, etc.

              • ondelette says:

                The only reason I said you should have was the same reason you said the NYT should have criticized the U.S. for Wikileaks: You are criticizing while remaining silent on an issue of importance to the continued democracy of the nation.

                You don’t see it that way? Obviously. Enough so that you don’t even stop to find out what the issue is with the patents, just start swinging and insulting. Well, then, maybe the NYT feels the same way about your “anklebiting” on Wikileaks. But you’re way too arrogant to ever see it that way, and you’re way too convinced that your intelligence is far, far beyond any criticism I could offer you. Fool.

                The patent issue is one of much more far reaching consequences than you imagine. It strikes at the very heart of the job creation cycle of the nation. I picked it to use on you because it really was an example that could be used in identically the same way on you. But you’re ignorant on it. Which is what the NYT is on Wikileaks. And your reaction is pure NYT. And now your chorus section is digging, digging, trying to come up with something that will change the basic equation. But it follows quite logically. You are as old and as tired as the NYT, because you are as arrogant and as unwilling to accept your lack of creativity as they are.

                And that’s the truth. It won’t matter how many Wisconsins there are. If you can’t break out of the old paradigms, you’re all done. And you, you’re all done.

        • dakine01 says:

          Don’t lecture me, I knew what I was doing and did precisely what I needed to for the analogy.

          Then you might want to not lecture others.

    • skdadl says:

      Pretty much, I would say, and from me that’s not snark — I suspect it’s the truth.

      I would be very sceptical of anything the NYT/Keller publish about “the Erdogan government.” Turkey just doesn’t work like that, but some people have a strong interest in misleading Westerners into thinking that official power there is all to be ascribed to Erdogan. It isn’t.

      The most powerful opposition Erdogan faces are the old-time Kemalist elites (much of the senior military and judiciary), often misleadingly described as “secularist” — which of course they are, in the way that Stalin was. They are nationalist to the point of xenophobia and oppose Erdogan’s enthusiasm for taking Turkey into the EU, a highly progressive move imo. They have also been the main persecutors of artists and intellectuals in Turkey for some years — read Orhan Pamuk on the subject of what happens to a Turkish Nobel prize winner who writes about the Armenian genocide. That wasn’t Erdogan’s doing — that’s the Kemalists, who are also trying to take Erdogan out.

      The US has had a long, relatively comfy relationship with the Kemalists. I don’t know exactly what they’re doing now, but I’m sure the CIA are in there, mucking about as usual, destabilizing a genuinely liberalizing leader. The propagandizers know they can get away with this in the West if they just mention that Erdogan is a Muslim and his opposition is “secular” (ie: repressive bastards, but that’s not how Westerners receive that word).

      I think it’s chilling in and of itself that Keller has published this editorial today. What might have been useful would be serious reporting from Turkey, informed by people who are there and who understand the complex flows of power and opposition Erdogan is coping with.

      Well, that would have been useful to me, to us, but that’s not what Keller does. He’s useful to the US admin, no one else.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        The military in Turkey, as it does in Egypt, holds controlling power, though it is normally content to act through a civilian figures in government. The key is “normally”.

        As you say, the CIA and DoD seem most adept at managing relations with conservative military figures, whose careers they can shepherd and promote through sponsorship at military academies and US universities, support for their policies and weapons purchases, the training of their armies and individuals in their patronage network, intelligence sharing, and the like.

  10. MicheleMooreHappy1 says:

    Thank God for Fire Dog Lake, your reporting and your analysis!

    The merging of government and the media is the key problem here. How did they become one and the same?

  11. Gitcheegumee says:

    On the subject of selective outrage, a few days ago, I came across a piece on Truthout regarding Interpol and Assange.

    I found it quite thought provoking..(and the pull no punches verbiage was quite an eye widener)!

    Investigation: Interpol and Julian Assange’s Red Notice
    Tuesday 08 March 2011

    by: Tess Lawrence | Independent Australia | Investigation
    Why did Julian Assange receive an Interpol Red Notice, but Gaddafi only an Orange? Tess Lawrence investigates the murky world of Interpol exclusively for IA, asking some troubling questions and uncovering some startling facts.

    NOTE to EoH: Earl, remember our petits tete a tetes about Interpol last year? *G*

    I have the tea kettle on,maintenant!

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Pardonez mois, I’ve been on earthquake duty.

      I seem to recall a butting of heads last year on the administration’s decision to extend to Interpol routine diplomatic freedoms from business and employment taxes, search of their registered personnel and their effects when entering US customs territory and the like.

      If you’re suggesting that that gave the US persuasive authority over a European-based police cooperation “trade association”, I doubt it was necessary. It didn’t affect the politics (and/or facts) that led to the disparate treatment – issuing a red arrest warrant for Assange over an alleged sex-based crime while issuing a warrant with less urgency for a billionaire, madman head of state like Gaddafi.

      As for the automatic effects given such warrants, which made it harder for Assange to fight extradition to Sweden, that’s a treaty matter among Europeans; national governments wanted it that way, at least when they negotiated and agreed to the treaty.

      As we said during last year’s tete-a-tete, if the US wanted to influence a particular “criminal” investigation, it would be simpler for it to simply make its wishes known to a few European countries currently kindly disposed to it. Criminal investigations are national affairs. Interpol isn’t the U.N.C.L.E.; it coordinates and facilitates investigations involving more than one jurisdiction, but its agents have no executive authority.

      • skdadl says:

        That’s pretty much the way I understand the situation. Finally, it comes down to national politics, and when you look more and more closely at Swedish politics through the last decade, you realize that they aren’t what they were.

        Although UK intel and police agencies have co-operated under the table with the US in a number of the kidnapping/torture cases, I’m pretty sure they never openly facilitated kidnappings from British soil. The Swedes did that, under a justice minister, Bodstrom, who is law partner of the lawyer representing the complainants in Assange’s case, Borgstrom. They actually ran two illegal renditions through their courts, which is why they are now paying two tortured men compensation.

        The US has snuck Sweden into NATO, and Karl Rove is PM Reinfeldt’s adviser. There’s more, but I wouldn’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, would I. ;)

        No apologies for the Brits, but I do think it’s harder for the UK government simply to do Washington’s bidding — the people are just more alert to that and resentful of it.

        • bmaz says:

          There is certainly the possibility for such shenanigans, but even the DO has acknowledged they have been unable to directly link Assange and Manning, and they really are loathe to attempt prosecution on something that NYT and others are just as exposed to because a good defense attorney is probably going to walk Assange for that. The DOJ will not do anything against Assange that is not a slam dunk, and there is none; and speculation by some out in the world that they will send him to Gitmo or whatever are ludicrous.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Besides, it’s better to smear someone in the press and keep people wondering, Cokie Roberts like, if they did what’s alleged. The question can be asked so many ways in so many venues. Actually having a decision releases too much tension and makes alleged foibles no longer newsworthy.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          This British government is a travesty; it makes Blair look law restrained and abiding. But English (and Canadian) judges have been holding firmer to the rule of law than some of their common law colleagues.

          • skdadl says:

            Yes, the UK High Court judges are good. Our judges are moderately good. ;)

            Worth remembering that both Sweden and the US practise indefinite detention. The UK doesn’t. They may have kinda prolonged detention, but it’s not this indefinite thing Obama has endorsed (especially for furriners). Marianne Ny can keep Assange in prison as long as she likes without charging him (charges start a clock ticking for trial), and she’s on record as saying that she thinks that’s a good thing in sex assault cases, even when the man is innocent, because it gives women a chance to calm their minds, or something like that. Don’t make me look it up (but I can).

        • Gitcheegumee says:

          Have you seen this,that Manning holds,by right of being born to a Welsh mother, UK citizenship? News to me.

          Bradley Manning is UK citizen and needs protection, government …guardian.co.ukFeb 1, 2011 … Amnesty International asks government to intervene on behalf of soldier suspected of having passed US secrets to WikiLeaks.
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/…/bradley-manning-uk-citizen – Cached

          Now ,doesn’t silence give consent?…crickets from “across the pond”…(and btw, this article was dated LONG before the nightly nude indignities,which,btw I personally believe to be related to issues of sexuality.

          • skdadl says:

            bmaz is right. As I understand it, Manning can apply for UK citizenship b/c he has a Welsh mother, and he’d probably get it; that’s close to automatic. But he hasn’t and apparently doesn’t want to. If he’d been born there, he would be a citizen.

      • Gitcheegumee says:

        Earl,I saw some of your earthquake duty work. It was impressive to say the least.

        I was actually trying to have a lighthearted moment regarding our exchange last year concerning Interpol..didn’t you see the grin sign?

  12. john in sacramento says:

    Keller is a complete joke; he oughta be on stage in Vegas at some cheesy off the strip casino

    I’m not reading his editorial, but his holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, hypocritical attitude is beyond grating. There was some kind of dustup between Arianna Huffington and him this week where he dismissed her and indirectly all other blogs as being nothing other than aggregators of work by others. What he fails to say is that’s only a part of what is done; there’s more work and verification than meets the eye.

    And he’s also stunningly oblivious the the fact that blogs are now the go to source for many, which is reflective of the hunger for actual tangible facts that critical thinking people can’t normally get from major media because of lazy, inept, obsequious scumbags that run them – like Keller who covers up and whitewashes for his controllers. So they go to blogs for the multiple sources

    If he had – any integrity – whatsoever, he’d be screaming from the top of his lungs for more info from wikileaks, and using that info to also point the finger at our own government

    He should be writing and fighting for the right of his readership to know what the f*** this country is doing in it’s citizens names

  13. orionATL says:

    [email protected]

    your comment was very informative.

    its perspective was from inside the society, rather than from an image seen thru a distant telescope.

    p.s.
    for those who may not recall, the word “kemalist” references kemal attaturk, a turkish leader of the early twentieth century who instituted major changes in turkish society.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The secularist father of modern, post-Ottoman Turkey. The critique of the secularism of Turkey’s current military leaders does not, I think, apply to Kemal Ataturk, who was a contemporary of Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi.

  14. skdadl says:

    I don’t mind giving Attaturk credit for what he did that was positive. Same way as I don’t mind giving Stalin a limited amount of credit. But really, there’s not a lot of light between them.

  15. radiofreewill says:

    ondelette – it’s a party foul to walk into the saloon swinging away at the bartender like that.

    And, if you’re going to be tough on purpose, then you don’t get to cry when your keester goes flying out the door in a hail of unflattering words to send up a dust cloud on main street.

    There are much better ways to use your talent to make your point…

    • ondelette says:

      Nope. Wrong message. The logic of my message was identical to the post. Identical. Now run along and find a saloon where you can mull over that, until you can figure out how someone can tell me that it’s wrong to attack the argument he used using the argument he used. My guess is that it all comes down again to seniority and privilege. Which is why the progressive movement has the same teeth as any movement with too much seniority and privilege.

      • radiofreewill says:

        You put-on the boxing gloves of the patents argument to throw a punch at the author – just so you could show him yourself how ‘selective’ someone’s ‘selective outrage’ can be.

        Despite the fact that this is a strong journo-legal blog featuring a well-cited article that points out the blatant hypocrisy of the NYT’s contradictory stands between Erdogan and WikiLeaks – somehow you managed to construe the author as having hypocritically used the same ‘outrage through selection bias’ himself to be outraged over the NYT’s selection bias.

        In essence, you said that if the NYT is a pot, then the author is a kettle – and so you get to punch it home to him in front of everyone.

        Well, I’ve got news for you, ondelette – as far as I can tell, the ‘hypocrisy’ that you saw in the writing of this article isn’t there.

        You took a swing at an innocent man.

        Think about it, and I suspect you’ll agree that you’re a little over-jacked here, and could use some cooling down.

        And, I’m not saying that condescendingly, either – you know it’s true.

  16. orionATL says:

    [email protected]

    the more wrong you are, the more arrogant and the more insistent you become.

    that is the imprimateur you have established for yourself, monsieur.

    you are doing yourself an enormous disservice.

    “the logic of my argument”?

    b.s., in spades

    little wave!!

    there is no logic, except bad logic, to your argument here.

    here is that bad logic:

    fdl may not discuss an issue critically, unless it has discussed all issues, or at least, “my pet issue”,

    without my crying foul on fdl for being a hypocrite

    for not discussing my issue when (or after, or before) discussing the issue of interest to them, e.g., nytimes media hypocrisy.

    so, little wave,

    must fdl put up a tote board, list all possible grievances, including your current pet grievance (patents),

    and then agree to discuss them all?

    in what order, little wave?

    must all be covered before any can be covered (discussed) again?

    your “logic” is logic that would make free-flowing discussion impossible.

    your “logic” is no more than a spasm of self-centered irritability.

    a mathematician, of all people, should not trifle disingenuously with logic,

    as you have trifled disingenously with logic here.

  17. orionATL says:

    [email protected]

    i have since regretted not hedging that matter :-).

    to me, the french suggests a feminine entity, but for some reason, perhaps the persistent ankle-chewing, i assumed masculine.

    but, bottom line, i have no idea.

    • Gitcheegumee says:

      Interesting..I thought the opposite…

      and perhaps a little discreet wavelet transformation might be in order

      to promote a spirit of civility.

  18. orionATL says:

    [email protected]

    this explains a lot.

    put bodrum (former swedish kidnapping-inclined justice minister) together with

    law partner (and “sexual assault” victims lawyer who accompanied the two women to the police ststion to make their belated “inquiry” about sex charges against assange) together with

    senior prosecutor maryanne ny (who is a long-time pal and political ally of borgstrom)

    and voila,

    now i am confident that assange was framed by ny, et al., by exploiting sweden’s endlessly detailed sexual assault laws (with which she and borgstrom have special familiarity).

    sketch of events:

    assange and one woman, then another, have sex.

    neither woman complains immediately and one rhapsodizes on her facebook, post encounter.

    some days later, women show up at a police station accompanied by bergstrom to “inquire” if they have been sexually assaulted (this inquiry is a neat trick of swedish law)

    prosecutor on duty rules “rape” and newspapers are immediately notified (contrary to rules)

    senior superior overrules dury-prosecutor a day later, ruling no rape took place

    maryanne ny, long-time ally and pal of borgstrom, overrules senior prosecutor and reinstates sexual assault charge against assange.

    a fact which you just provided allows me to connect the dots suggesting there most definitely was a plot against (the extremely foolish) assange:

    -the prescence in swedish law of indefinite detention

    now, in order to connect the americans,

    i need a connection between some part of the american government and borgrum/bergstrom/ny.

    clearly, the u.s. would be willing to pay a lot, in one or another “currency”, for assange to be locked up indefinitely.

    • skdadl says:

      You’ve got one detail wrong: Borgstrom wasn’t involved the evening of the original complaint. That weekend, though, after the senior prosecutor dismissed all but one minor complaint, Ms A (are we allowed to use their names, or is this a JOSHUA CLAUS situation?), who is politically connected to him, took the whole mess to Borgstrom, who then proceeded to draw Ny in.

      You’re right about the disingenuity of the original visit to the police station. That is a trick in Swedish law. If you go to the police just “to ask a question,” you can’t later be charged with bearing false witness, or however that is put. Some “questions” automatically lead to investigations, and Ms A would have known that, but you are protected if you approach on that basis.

  19. Cryptome says:

    Wikileaks and Julian Assange have not claimed to be journalism, instead journalism has been derided as ineffectual and cowardly. Recent efforts to gain a shield of journalism should not be seen as a change of mind about the intent of the initiative, rather a shrewd ruse to use journalism as a front by fostering its pretentious self-importance. The WL ruse is working quite well, not only by such as Greenwald and other exploiters of Wikileaks running their own ruses for the promotional purposes, but for the re-invigoration of tired-blood over-commercialised journalism desperate to reclaim public support, that is to convince advertisers that their customers have not lost interest in news, breaking news, headlines, investigative journalism, celebrity op-eds, reader whinings and endless repetitions of child abuse, drug abuse, sex abuse, gun abuse, racial abuse, anti-semitic abuse, cop abuse, priest abuse, political party abuse, lobbyist abuse, congressional abuse, presidential abuse, warmaking abuse, wounded warrior abuse, mortgage abuse, climate change abuse, totalitarian abuse, drone assassination abuse, with occasional reports of unusual human decency hardly worth exaggerating to the level of screeching to unglaze eyeballs to unwax earholes to unshut wallets. Wikileaks will succeed if it avoids journalism’s cowering behind constitutional protection — a deal with Dr. Faust. NYT is far from alone in bedding down with feared tax authorities.

    • skdadl says:

      Gosh. Nice to meet you. Much as I often disagree with you, I appreciate your honesty and I’m glad I have a chance to tell you so.

    • bmaz says:

      What WL informally, and outside of a legal context, calls itself is not particularly relevant. Your consistent efforts to mold this into something in way of support for your anti-WikiLeaks attitude is, frankly, dubious and legal nonsense. Irrespective of whether WL are self promoters, or whether you like them as an entity (or Assange as an individual), to argue against their being protected as journalists for purposes of consideration of Espionage Act prosecution is short sighted. At best.

  20. orionATL says:

    from the cnn link provided by rosalind

    p.j. crowley said:

    ‘…”The unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a serious crime under U.S. law,” Crowley said in a statement Sunday. “My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership.

    “The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values,” Crowley said. “Given the impact of my remarks, for which I take full responsibility, I have submitted my resignation.” …”

    of potentially great interest might be this cat-out-of-the-bag part of crowley’s statement:

    “… [the] strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day …”

    “by national security agencies” ?

    who might that be?

    dod is not customarily referred to as a “nat’l security agency”.

    could dia, cia, nsa, or jsoc be conducting or orchestrating manning’s torture?

    could the “marines” guarding manning and supervising his torture be fake marines who were agents of a “nat’l security agency”?

    i have long believed that somewhere in the chain-of-command involving manning’s detention there was one or more experts in torture running the show, or at least advising.

    • bobschacht says:

      i have long believed that somewhere in the chain-of-command involving manning’s detention there was one or more experts in torture running the show, or at least advising.

      Unfortunately, the Obama administration has far too many of those folks available for this duty.

      Bob in AZ

  21. orionATL says:

    [email protected]

    thanks for the valuable response.

    the assange matter has been of special interest to me but i have found it extremely difficult to try to comprehend some legal aspects of an unfamiliar culture from the outside.

  22. Gitcheegumee says:

    Here’s an interesting piece that includes border law from UK and also US…(don’t let the title offput anyone). The comments and content are very good:

    How we know Bradley Manning is a UK citizen « UK Friends of …Jan 31, 2011 … A child born to a British citizen outside the UK or its overseas territories is a British citizen by descent. Bradley Manning is therefore a …
    wl-tsunami.posterous.com/how-we-know-bradley-manning-is-a-uk-citizen-u – Cached

  23. Gitcheegumee says:

    Incidentally, has ANY country spoken out against the human indignity of the nightly “unveiling”?

  24. rosalind says:

    Obama’s whole “act” last night at the Gridiron is now up. While his minions were forcing Crowley out, he was spewing this:

    But whatever challenges we face and however history unfolds, we rely on all of you — the press — to tell the story. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be in positions of power may have our gripes about how the media covers us, but that’s only because your job is to hold us accountable. And none of us would want to live in a country without that failsafe — without a free press and freedom of expression. That’s what people all around the world are fighting for as we speak. In some cases, they’re dying for those rights. And that’s what many reporters risk their lives to uphold — from Kandahar to Tripoli.

    tee hee, oh my sides! s/

    extra bonus: FDL got a shout-out early on:

    And while I know I have my share of critics out there, I don’t focus on the negative stuff. I just don’t pay much attention to it. Most days I barely skim through the comment section of Huffington Post — Daily Kos — Fire Dog Lake — The Daily Dish — boingboing.net. (Laughter.)

    • Gitcheegumee says:

      rosalind, do you recall Bush’s schtick for the Whorehouse Press Corps where he was shown peering under the rug in the Oval Office,with the caption:

      “No WMD here!”

      That got a lot of yucks from the presstitutes,too.

      Funny,nobody is laughing except inside the Beltway…and outside the Potomac.

      • rosalind says:

        yup. evidently it’s a feature, not a bug. it has such a stench of the Emperor with his Courtiers, tittering into their glasses of Veuve Clicquot.

        i keep picturing the footage of elderly people in wheelchairs being forced to stand to be groped by TSA agents juxtaposed with Obama’s “punchlines”:

        “America’s favorite voyeur, TSA Administrator John Pistole is in the house. No hard feelings, John. I mean that literally. Please.” (laughter and applause).

        you will have to supply our own rim shot.

  25. orionATL says:

    [email protected]

    sorry for the neglect of your important comment.

    “current affairs” always seems to engage us too easily –

    and be passed and forgotten easily, too.

    the issue of prosecutors powers,

    and the issue of prosecutors routine abuse of their powers these days are connected.

    if a court will not discipline, or cannot disipline withput being reversed on appeal,

    then prosecutors are presented with the opportunity to be as authoritarian as they wish.

    an opportunity they may seize upon.

    that is the story of, e.g., former alabama gov don sieglman’s prosecution by u.s. attorney for middle alabama, leura canary,

    and that is the story of the prosecution of georgia legislator charles walker, whose ” sin” was to work to remove the remnants of a confederate flag from the georgia state flag.

    judge robert jackson instructed (federal) prosecutors in how to recognize abuse of prosecutorial power, but his message seems to be unwelcome these days.