Greenwald: Climate of Fear: Jim Risen v. the Obama administration

[markpkessinger]

Thursday, Jun 23, 2011 05:24 ET

Climate of Fear: Jim Risen v. the Obama administration

By Glenn Greenwald

The Obama DOJ's effort to force New York Times investigative journalist Jim Risen to testify in a whistleblower prosecution and reveal his source is really remarkable and revealing in several ways; it should be receiving much more attention than it is. On its own, the whistleblower prosecution and accompanying targeting of Risen are pernicious, but more importantly, it underscores the menacing attempt by the Obama administration -- as Risen yesterday pointed out -- to threaten and intimidate whistleblowers, journalists and activists who meaningfully challenge what the government does in secret.

The subpoena to Risen was originally issued but then abandoned by the Bush administration, and then revitalized by Obama lawyers. It is part of the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent whom the DOJ accuses of leaking to Risen the story of a severely botched agency plot -- from 11 years ago -- to infiltrate Iran's nuclear program, a story Risen wrote about six years after the fact in his 2006 best-selling book, State of War. The DOJ wants to force Risen to testify under oath about whether Sterling was his source.

Like any good reporter would, Risen is categorically refusing to testify and, if it comes to that (meaning if the court orders him to testify), he appears prepared to go to prison in defense of press freedoms and to protect his source (just as some young WikiLeaks supporters are courageously prepared to do rather than cooperate with the Obama DOJ's repellent persecution of the whistleblowing site). Yesterday, Risen filed a Motion asking the Court to quash the government's subpoena on the ground that it violates the First Amendment's free press guarantee, and as part of the Motion, filed a lengthy Affidavit that is amazing in several respects.

<. . . >

There are two aspects to Risen's Affidavit which merit particular attention. First, Risen cites a 2006 ABC News report from Brian Ross and others that claimed the Bush administration was, without warrants, spying on the communications of reporters (including Ross) in order to discover the identity of their sources. I personally never attached much credence to that story because of how unreliable I find Brian Ross to be, but in his Affidavit, Risen states (under oath) that he "has reason to believe that the story . . . is true" because he "learned from an individual who testified before a grand jury in this District that was examining my reporting about the domestic wiretapping program that the Government had shown this individual copies of telephone records relating to calls made to and from me."

The fact that Bush officials were spying on reporters is extraordinary. Instead of pursuing Cheneyite vendettas by persecuting whistleblowers who exposed newsworthy ineptitude from long-irrelevant CIA plots, the Obama DOJ ought to be investigating that allegation; that it isn't and wouldn't speaks volumes.

Second, Risen links the Obama administration's pursuit of the Sterling case and of Risen to the current President's broader (and unprecedented) war on whistleblowers and investigative journalism. He writes:

I believe that the efforts to target me have continued under the Obama Administration, which has been aggressively investigating whistleblowers and reporters in a way that will have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press in the United States.

What's particularly striking about this prosecution is that it involves digging deep into the ancient past (the Iran operation in question was begun under the Clinton administration): this from a President who insisted that Bush officials not be investigated for their crimes on the ground that we must "Look Forward, Not Backward." But it's not hard to see why Obama officials are so intent on doing so: few things are more effective in creating a Climate of Fear -- one that deters investigation and disclosure and stifles the exercise of basic rights -- than prosecuting prominent people for having challenged and undermined the government's agenda. As Risen documents, that -- plainly -- is what this prosecution and the Obama administration's broader anti-whistleblower war is about: chilling the exercise of basic rights and the ability to challenge government actions.

< . . . >

What the Obama administration is doing, above all else, is bolstering the Climate of Fear that prevents any challenges to its pronouncements of this sort. I wrote about that joint White-House/Politico attack on Hersh to mock the gross hypocrisy of criticizing Hersh for his use of anonymous sources in the very same article where Politico granted anonymity to Obama officials to attack him; but the more substantive point is that of course Hersh has to use anonymous sources. In the Climate of Fear being deliberately fortified by the Obama administration, what person in their right mind would openly challenge their national security decrees on classified matters or call their veracity into question? As the Sterling/Risen case and numerous others have intentionally conveyed: imprisonment is the likely outcome for those who do that.

< . . . >

Read full article at: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/23/risen/index.html

[sabrina 1]

1. The left was up in arms when the Bush Administration

went after Risen.

Kudos to Glenn Greenwald for not developing amnesia about how important this was when Bush was president.

And the outcry was so fierce, that Bush eventually left Risen alone. But now, who is going to stand up for freedom of the press?

The right isn't likely to do it, since they so fiercely defended Bush at the time, and condemned Risen. And the left is suddenly silent on so many of the issues that used to be so important to them.

People like Greenwald who was cheered for his coverage of this same issue under Bush, is more likely to be attacked by the same supporters now.

So, the two party system works, although not for us. What Republicans can't get done with a rebellious 'left' to deal with, Democrats can do without hardly a whimper from the left.

When that changes, when people do not feel obligated to defend something like when their party is doing is, but rather stay focused on the issue, then maybe we can start to change things.

[enough]

2. This is a phenomenon that I find mystifying, the idea that we should not criticize Obama

for doing the same things we despised in Bush. Yet it seems to be quite prevalent. As you say, amnesia.

[Overseas]

3. K&R. I want Democratic administrations to strengthen whistleblower protection.

It has been painful to see the opposite happen.

[GeorgeGist]

4. One doesn't need a whistleblower ...

to know that Obama is severely botching his plot to be Mr. Wonderful.