News for the Waking Generation
The DOJ IG said it found “Burke’s conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney.”
Read more
After the Associated Press revealed on Monday that they are the target of a US Department of Justice probe, Obama asked lawmakers to consider a would-be media shield law that fell apart in Washington after the start of his first presidency in 2009.
The AP wrote this week that the Justice Department subpoenaed two months of phone records likely in an attempt to try and find out with whom the news agency spoke with before publishing a May 2012 article that exposed a Yemeni terror plot foiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. Attorney General Eric Holder called the disclosure of classified information to the AP one of the biggest leaks ever suffered by the US and said publically that it put the American people at risk. On Thursday, Pres. Obama commented that “leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” but suggested that reviving a media shield law that died in Congress could perhaps strike the balance between the public’s right to know and the safety of the nation.
“So the whole goal of this media shield law that was worked on, and largely endorsed by folks like the Washington Post editorial page and prosecutors, was finding a way to strike that balance appropriately,” said the president. “And to the extent this case … has prompted renewed interest about how do we strike that balance properly, I think now is the time for us to go ahead and revisit that legislation. I think that’s a worthy conversation to have and I think that’s important.”
Now as the White House shifts focus from one scandal to another, free speech advocates are concerned that the shield law, as written, wouldn’t do much more than current legislation in terms of thwarting future subpoenas sent to journalists. Trevor Timm, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a board member of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote in a blog post this week that the media shield law touted by Pres. Obama during his days as a senator in Illinois failed to take shape after he secured his spot in the Oval Office.
“As a Senator, Obama was a vocal supporter of a robust shield law; he co-sponsored a bill in 2007 and campaigned on the issue in 2008,” Timm wrote. “But when the Senate moved to pass the bill as soon as Obama came into office, his administration abruptly changed course and opposed the bill, unless the Senate carved out an exception for all national security reporters.”
When Obama entered the White House in early 2009, he walked away from a Senate where a shield law he advocated for had just started to take shape. Before long, though, his own administration asked for Congress to make adjustments before it ended up on the president’s desk. That original law would, in theory, put in place safeguards that would help prevent journalists from being compelled to testify who their sources are. Once in the White House, though, Obama did an about face.
In September 2009, Charlie Savage wrote for the New York Times that those safeguards “would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause ‘significant’ harm to national security.”
“Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal,” Savage wrote.
One of the bill’s authors, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York), had sharp words for the president at the time. “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it hard to pass this legislation,” the senator said. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania), a co-sponsor, called the changes “totally unacceptable.”
“If the president wants to veto it, let him veto it,” Sen. Specter told the Times in 2009. “I think it is different for the president to veto a bill than simply to pass the word from his subordinates to my subordinates that he doesn’t like the bill.”
Ultimately, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the shield law after some minor tweaking in December 2009, but as Savage explained in the Times this week, “a furor over leaking arose after WikiLeaks began publishing archives of secret government documents, and the bill never received a vote.”
read more
RT Op-Edge
Patrick Henningsen
Back in August 2012, things were a lot different in Washington DC and in the White House…
The Obama administration was brandishing a confident swagger back then, heading into the elections against a hobbling GOP opponent, and Benghazi had yet to unfold in all of its ugliness.
Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013. (AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)
As Hillary Clinton was jetting around on the US State Department budget promoting her ‘Friends of Syria’ Middle East and European tours, and as the CIA were busy like bees working in the gray shadows of Benghazi, Washington and London were laying the groundwork for their new WMD case is Syria.
As last summer drew to a close, President Barack Obama confidently announced he was drawing a ‘Red Line’ in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, meaning that any evidence of their use on either side of that conflict would lead to consequences, the obvious inference being automatic US military intervention.
Fast forward to the present, and Washington appears to have been caught in the vortex of its own spin machine, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently forced to ‘clarify’ the President’s infamous ‘Red Line’ decree with what can only be described as desperate political cover. Here Carney attempted to explain away the previous ultimatum and re-explain the President’s position:
“What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus… What he never did – and it is simplistic to do so is to say that ‘if X happens, Y will happen’. He has never said what reaction he would take.”
It’s hard to run a global empire and still pander to sensitive liberal concerns at home. The White House seems to be at pains coming to terms with what the Neoconservative Bush government already knew a decade ago – that there really is no good, safe way to do a military intervention. In the end, the façade of political spin cannot provide ethical cover for invading and toppling another sovereign state. You can’t finesse your way into it, you have to just go for it in full view – lie if you have to, fabricate evidence if need be, and be damned with the political fallout…
The truth behind the British government’s plan for a Police State by the back door…
Many people in the United Kingdom, across the whole spectrum of the General Public, have been shocked at the blatant attempt by the Leveson Inquiry to hijack and gag the British Press and Media.
Using a deliberate and calculated network of Common Purpose infiltrated and aligned organisations, including the Media Standards Trust, Hacked Off, Full Fact and others, this highly political and subversive campaign was designed to bring mainstream press and media under direct control of the State.
We recognise that neither the mainstream press or media are without blemish, but without their efforts and courage, major exposure of many serious events would never have emerged – Hillsborough, NHS Body Parts and Deaths, Banking Fraud, MPs Expenses, Paedophile Rings, Child Stealing by the State, Public Service Corruption, death of Dr David Kelly, and the lie of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction are just a few.
Was the exposure by the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun and others simply a stroke of luck, or are we now seeing the mainstream press and media reacting to the considerable effort and impact of many alternative media sources, such as web sites, web radio, TV, Podcasts and printed papers?
Against the rise of a sinister level of British State spying on ordinary people, press and media controls, secret arrests, secret courts and the bullying, arrest and trial of whistleblowers, it is obvious that dark actors are at work amongst the elites and political powers. Should we lose a free investigatory press and media in UK, the outlook is very serious indeed. Many media sources are now using words such a Stalinist, Stasi, horrifying and sinister.
Many investigative journalists live short lives in dictatorships. The proof? The free press and media have themselves reported it widely.
This unique UK Column Conference is designed to ‘take the lid off’ political events in Britain today with a focus on the move for the State to control both mainstream and alternative media sources.
We will examine the dangers of State controlled press and media, the subversive forces driving this agenda, and we will give special attention on political propaganda around major terrorist events in Britain and USA over the last few years. The BBC is an area of special focus – a publicly funded organisation that claims to be ‘independent and unbiased’, whilst it building a £multi-billion world propaganda service.
Are you involved in mainstream press or media? Or are you an amateur striving to get the real truth out by whatever means possible? Either way, this unique conference is designed to open eyes and build bridges between all those who believe in the power of free press and media. You need to attend, and you will not be disappointed. Bring your readers, listeners, supporters, followers, staff and volunteers…
Confirmed speakers:
Brian Gerrish - UK Coumn Live, Common Purpose Exposed
Patrick Henningsen - 21st Century Wire, Russia Today
Ben Fellows – G4S, BBC child abuse whistleblower
Bill Maloney – Pie and Mash Films
Malcolm Massey – BCG, UK Column Live
Louise Collins – TNS Radio, UK Column
Kirk Rutter – Infomatics films
Plus special guests
Tickets will also be available on the day…
EVERYONE HAS A STAKE IN THIS ISSUE. THE TIME TO GET INVOLVED IS NOW.
Find out more about the UK Column here in this short video presentation…
-
21st Century Wire says…
Some of the most highly paid US talk show hosts are, more often than not, out of their depth when it comes to discussing deep politics. Sadly, more and more these days the majority of middle class, university educated Americans rely heavily on the likes of Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart for their world view. Cue the laugh tracks…
This spat which took place on Bill Maher’s recent talk show exposes what happens when an above average IQ guest is allowed to challenge the elite comedian class on America’s TV screens. Watch as canny veteran journalist Glenn Greenwald makes short work of the host, exposing Maher’s own 4th grade view of Middle East politics and US foreign policy – in front of Maher’s own drooling audience…
YouTube
Bill Maher is taken apart by Glenn Greenwald for trying to absolve the US from any responsibility for the mass slaughter and destruction in Muslim countries, blaming it on Islamic fundamentalism, as if the Afghanistan and Iraq wars never happened, as if the US wasn’t pushing for more war in Iran, as if it isn’t intervening in Somalia and Yemen.
-
Were they instructed by the White House, or the Democratic Party leadership to pursue such groups in the run-up to the 2012 election. If we suspend political naivety for just a few seconds, we can see that the answer to this is most likely, yes.
The IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner, said the actions, although not motivated by partisan concerns, were wrong, and she apologized twice on Friday.
She said that between 2010 and 2012, about 75 of these groups were selected for extra screening as part of a broader review of political advocacy organizations that were seeking tax-exempt status. Front-line IRS employees working in the tax-exempt unit in Cincinnati selected groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, she said, as a shorthand because of the proliferation of these groups in recent years.
The employees also requested donor lists from some of the groups and sent questionnaires seeking overly broad information, Lerner acknowledged.
“That’s absolutely inappropriate and not the way we ought to do things,” Lerner said in a briefing with reporters. “They didn’t do it out of any political bias.”
Lerner would not say whether any of the IRS employees involved have been disciplined, but she said that new policies have been put in place to prohibit this kind of screening and that, overall, none of the 75 groups have been rejected for approval so far.
The IRS apology did not mollify either conservative political groups or Republican lawmakers, who have been warning for more than a year about unfair treatment from the agency.
“I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Friday. “An apology won’t put this issue to rest.”
One of the nation’s largest tea party groups, the Tea Party Patriots, said it rejected the IRS’s explanation and demanded the resignations of all officials involved. The group also called on President Obama to apologize for ignoring its groups’ concerns…
Read more at Washington Post
A real whistleblower?WASHINGTON — Five days before two bombs tore through crowds at the Boston Marathon, an intelligence report identified the finish line as an “area of increased vulnerability” and warned Boston police that homegrown extremists could use “small-scale bombings” to attack spectators and runners at the event.
The 18-page report, similar to others sent to police and first responders before major events in the Boston area, was written by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, which is funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security and helps disseminate intelligence information to local police and first responders.
The assessment noted that there was “no credible, specific information indicating an imminent threat” to the race.
“The FBI has not identified any specific lone offender or extremist group who pose a threat to the Boston Marathon,” the report said.
In the aftermath of the bombing, who in law enforcement knew what and when have become significant points of contention.
Even as federal officials pointed to the warning as evidence they had done their jobs, Boston and Massachusetts state police officials complained at a congressional hearing Thursday that the FBI had not told them about an earlier investigation involving Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two brothers accused of carrying out the April 15 attacks that left three dead and more than 260 injured.
Since the blasts, the FBI has acknowledged that agents interviewed Tsarnaev in 2011 but determined that he did not pose a threat. Customs agents were aware that Tsarnaev, 26, had traveled to Russia in 2012, but decided that he didn’t require additional questioning when he returned to the U.S. later that year.
Boston police officials and members of Congress expressed frustration during the hearing that the FBI and other agencies hadn’t shared more widely what they knew about the Tsarnaevs.
“We would have liked to have known,” Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis told the House Homeland Security Committee during the first of a series of hearings investigating the attacks. Davis testified that he did not learn about the Tsarnaevs until more than three days after the bombings, after Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been killed in a police shootout and his 19-year-old brother, Dzhokhar, was on the run.
But Davis said he was uncertain what his intelligence officers would have made of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s 2012 trip to Dagestan, Russia, noting that the FBI had interviewed him but found nothing suspicious and that Russian officials did not tell the FBI why they were interested in him.
“We would certainly have looked at the information,” Davis said. “We would certainly have talked to the individual.” But he added: “I can’t say I would have come to a different conclusion” than the FBI.
Federal officials defended their actions and suggested local law enforcement agencies had not fully followed up on possible threats….
Read more at LA Times
The following is no exaggeration, and it is based on the very words of the President of the United States.
SEOUL, South Korea — Former NBA star Dennis Rodman is tapping his friendship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to ask for the release of a Korean-American man sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in the North.
“I’m calling on the Supreme Leader of North Korea or as I call him `Kim’, to do me a solid and cut Kenneth Bae loose,” Rodman said on Twitter. He later called the tweet a direct response to a Seattle Times editorial that dared him to ask Kim for the release if the two are really buddies.
Rodman visited North Korea in February and sat next to Kim as they watched an exhibition basketball game. His trip came at a time of high tension between Pyongyang and Washington and was not endorsed by the U.S. State Department.
Bae is a tour operator who was arrested in North Korea in November. The North’s Supreme Court sentenced him last week for unspecified “hostile acts” against the state. In a Foreign Ministry statement on Sunday, North Korea said the 44-year-old Washington state man entered the country with a disguised identity.
Bae is at least the sixth American detained in North Korea since 2009. The others eventually were deported or released, some after trips to Pyongyang by prominent Americans, including former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
North Korea’s Foreign Ministry rejected speculation that it was seeking a U.S. envoy to negotiate Bae’s release, saying he is not a political bargaining chip.
Analysts have said North Korea may be using Bae as bait to open direct negotiations with the United States over its nuclear arms programs. Bae’s sentencing came during a lull after weeks of threats of war from Pyongyang against the U.S. and South Korea.
The U.S. has called for the North to immediately release Bae. It relies on Swedish diplomats in Pyongyang to deal with Bae’s case because the North and the U.S. have no formal diplomatic relations after the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce instead of a peace treaty.
North Korea has not described the exact nature of Bae’s alleged crimes. Friends say Bae is a devout Christian and tour operator based in China who traveled frequently to North Korea to feed orphans.
