Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Grandmother's 'Hellfire' death
recounted in Amnesty report

"Accustomed to seeing drones overhead, Mamana Bibi and her grandchildren continued their daily routine. 'The drone planes were flying over our village all day and night, flying in pairs sometimes three together. We had grown used to them flying over our village all the time,' Zubair Rehman continued. 'I was watering our animals and my brother was harvesting maize crop,' said Nabeela." -- excerpt from Amnesty International report.

A moment later last October two Hellfire missiles inexplicably blasted the farm woman, Amnesty reports.

Amnesty's report on drone casualties
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA33/013/2013/en/041c08cb-fb54-47b3-b3fe-a72c9169e487/asa330132013en.pdf

Needed: whistleblower to expose drone horrors

Whistleblowing is a time-honored tradition in America. Would that an insider would blow the whistle on drone depredations.

One of the more amazing stories of whistleblowing is that of ace code-cracker Herbert Yardley.

Herbert Yardley: king of the whistleblowers
http://kryptograff5.blogspot.com/2013/10/herbert-yardley-king-of-whistleblowers.html

Thursday, October 17, 2013

House Republicans display
massive defiance of Boehner
Almost two-thirds of House Republicans voted against their majority leader, John Boehner, on the deal that ended the federal shutdown with virtually no concessions from chortling Democrats.

Boehner led 87 of 231 House Republicans to join with a solid Democratic block in passing the bill that was quickly signed by President Obama. The GOP hardliners were defeated by the Wall Street doomsayers who applied pressure on Congress to avert a default irrespective of any other concerns, no matter how important.

Boehner took a calculated risk by playing along with the financial interests, evidently believing that with their support he will retain his leadership position in the next session of Congress which begins in January. However, with two-thirds of House Republicans voting against Boehner, his rivals are already jockeying to take his place. It remains to be seen who will emerge as a serious threat to his leadership.

Many observers are commenting on the fault line running through the House GOP. A possible result is that those who voted against Boehner and Obama will find a leader closer to their point of view than to that of the one-third of Republicans who sided with Wall Street and the White House.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Court upholds Obama team

on forcing reporter to talk

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

By Latara Appleby
A federal appellate court declined a request for rehearing by James Risen, a New York Times reporter, yesterday. Of the 14 judges, 13 rejected the petition to rehear the case.

A three-judge panel had ruled in July that Risen would have to testify to the identity of his confidential source in a story involving information leaks from the Central Intelligence Agency.

Judge Roger L. Gregory, who dissented in the 2-1 July ruling, cast the single dissenting vote in the decision denying rehearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

“The majority [opinion] exalts the interests of the government while unduly trampling those of the press, and in doing so, severely impinges on the press and the free flow of information in our society,” Gregory wrote in July.

The original ruling from the U.S. District Court held that Risen was protected by a reporter’s privilege and did not have to testify.

However, the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that there is "no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality.”

In writing his dissent to the denial of rehearing, Gregory quoted President John F. Kennedy, emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment and saying that no country can succeed without criticism.

He noted that there are two instances when a court will allow a case to be heard in front of the full panel of judges in a circuit, one being when the proceeding involves an issue of exceptional importance. “There can be no doubt that this issue is one of exceptional importance, a fundamental First Amendment question that has not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court or our Sister Circuits,” he wrote.

“An independent press is as indispensable to liberty as is an independent judiciary. For public opinion to serve as a meaningful check on government power, the press must be free to report to the people the government’s use (or misuse) of that power. Denying reporters a privilege in the criminal context would be gravely detrimental to our great nation,” Gregory wrote.

There is no federal shield law protecting journalists, but 49 of 50 states recognize a reporter’s privilege in some form (39 states and the District of Columbia have passed shield statutes). A shield bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in September and is headed to the full Senate for consideration.

GOP hardliners in position
to give Boehner the heave
After caving in to Democrats and Wall Street doomsayers, John Boehner remains the leader of the House majority. But, by calling a vote on a debt deal, he may well have cost himself his position.

Boehner said that the debt legislation must prevail, as only a handful of Republicans are needed to join with the Democrats. Yet if most Republicans do indeed vote against the measure, then House GOP hardliners will be in a position to wrest the leadership from Boehner and name someone more in line with their views.

If that happens, President Obama and the Democrats may face a really hard ride in the remainder of Obama's term that begins with the next session of Congress at the end of January.

National security run amok
Feds concealing from public
data on airport scanner risks
Electronic Privacy Information Center
EPIC has challenged two decisions by a federal district court which
allow the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation
Security Administration to withhold factual information about airport
body scanners, including test results, fact sheets, and estimates of
radiation risks. In the opening brief to the court, EPIC argued that
federal agencies may not withhold factual information under the
"deliberative process privilege" in the Freedom of Information Act.
EPIC maintained that "under the standard adopted by the lower court,
not only would the judgment of agency officials be exempt, but so too
would reports or studies of any significance."

The challenge combines  two separate cases EPIC appealed to the DC
Circuit. EPIC filed a motion to consolidate both appeals  because they
raise substantially similar legal issues. EPIC then presented the issue
of whether the lower court erred in failing to apply the "inextricably
intertwined" test before determining that records could be withheld in
full despite containing non-deliberative and factual materials normally
released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two cases combined in EPIC's appeal also include a case against the
Department of Homeland Security. That FOIA lawsuit sought records on
the radiation risks posed by body scanners. The other FOIA lawsuit,
against the Transportation Security Administration, sought to obtain
agency records that detailed the operation and capabilities of the
"Automated Targeting Recognition" software used on body scanners.

According to the government Automated Targeting Recognition software
allows TSA agents to see only a generic human image rather than the
traveler's naked body. After several EPIC lawsuits and an act of
Congress, TSA was required to adjust the devices to produce only
generic images. However, earlier in 2013 the TSA was finally forced
to unplug and box up the backscatter x-ray body scanners after the
agency could not meet the Congressional mandate. The TSA was also
required to take public comments on the use of body scanners after
EPIC sued the agency for the unilateral decision to make body
scanners the primary screening technique in US airports -
a rule change that violated the Administrative Procedures Act.


EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS ? Body Scanner FOIA Appeal
http://epic.org/foia/dhs/bodyscanner/appeal/

EPIC:  Opening Brief in EPIC v. DHS (Oct. 1, 2013)
http://epic.org/redirect/101113-epic-v-dhs-brief.html

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS ? Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks
http://epic.org/redirect/020113-backscatter-radiation.html

EPIC:  EPIC v. TSA ? Body Scanner Modifications (ATR)
http://epic.org/foia/tsa/atr/

EPIC: Comments to TSA re: Passenger Screening Using AIT (June 24, 2013)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-TSA-NBS.pdf

DC District Ct.:  Decision in EPIC v. DHS (Scanners) (Mar. 7, 2013)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-v-TSA-11-00290.pdf

DC District Ct.:  Decision in EPIC v. DHS (PowerPoint) (Mar. 7, 2013)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-v-DHS-10-1992.pdf

EPIC:  Initial Documents from DHS re: Body Scanners (Feb. 11, 2013)
http://epic.org/foia/dhs/usss/Secret-Service-Docs-1.pdf

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS: Suspension of Body Scanner Program
http://epic.org/redirect/030113-epic-v-dhs-scan-suspension.html

Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

Monday, October 14, 2013

Times rejected British demand

that it hand over Snowden data

A British demand that the New York Times hand over data leaked by Edward Snowden was refused by the chief editor of the New York Times, the Guardian is reporting.

Jill Abramson, the Times editor, disclosed that she had rebuffed British officials who approached her with the aim of having the Times yield data shared by the Guardian. Her statement came in a story proclaiming the official relaunch tomorrow of the International Herald Tribune under the name International New York Times.

Though such resistance is commendable, the Times has been slow to mine the trove of NSA data or to aggressively pursue that data, it appears. On the other hand, the Times, along with the Washington Post, has done good work in disclosing some of the secret maneuverings behind the dark government secretly erected under President Obama.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/13/new-york-times-jill-abramson-first-amendment

Friday, October 11, 2013

Obama's paranoid press policies

dovetail with super-surveillance
Downie sees Obama as worse than Nixon on media

'This is the most closed, control-freak
 administration I’ve ever covered.' 

-- David E. Sanger,

Washington correspondent

of the New York Times

White House press aides fear
to answer reporter queries

“When you call the White House press office to ask a question or seek information, they refer us to White House websites,” said Chris Schlemon, Washington producer for Britain’s Channel 4 television news network. “We have to use White House website content, White House videos of the president’s interviews with local television stations and White House photographs of the president.”

The Obama administration is using social media “to end run the news media completely,” another news professional told Leonard J. Downie, a former Washington Post editor. “Open dialogue with the public without filters is good, but if used for propaganda and to avoid contact with journalists, it’s a slippery slope.”

Press coalition raps spook news curbs

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 36 other news media organizations, filed public comments
calling on the president’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to more carefully balance the secrecy sometimes required in national security investigations with the public’s right to know what its government is doing.

In response to a call from the Review Group to comment on how government can utilize technology to protect national security while protecting privacy and civil liberties, the Reporters Committee-led media coalition made several suggestions, including increased transparency in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the FISA court) and the creation of a media advocate to oversee public interests in the secret court.

“We urge this Review Group to embrace a more transparent FISA process and help ensure that the FISA court does not interfere with protected newsgathering to the point that innocent and necessary communications with reporters are stifled,” the Reporters Committee letter stated. “The government needs to more vigorously protect the free flow of information and openness in the judicial process to ensure that its efforts to combat terrorism do not end up swallowing the nation’s commitment to First Amendment values.”

Among the Reporters Committee’s recommendations explained in the Review Group letter are:

Government officials must ensure that legal speech is not deterred. “The stated purpose of leak investigations is to punish those people who have taken on confidentiality obligations to the government and then broken the law by divulging classified information. The effect, however, is much broader. Such investigations, which have increased significantly during the Obama administration, have the effect of deterring perfectly legal speech that is necessary for the public to understand the functions of government.”

The coalition suggests that agencies be more careful not to over-classify information, while simultaneously simplifying the declassification process.

Journalists’ communications, sources, and work product must be protected.“Currently, there is no protection for newsgathering in FISA. Nor is there a sufficient understanding in the public domain of all the ways in which FISA procedures can entangle the work of reporters and their relationships with sources.”

The media coalition recommends a better public explanation of how reporters’ records are being used, as well as a higher standard for government to prove that the material it seeks is directly related to foreign terrorism investigations.

FISA court decisions with precedential value should be released regularly. “A major step toward fostering public understanding and trust in these surveillance programs would be to incorporate a presumption of disclosure into FISC rules that would require, at the very least, the release of FISA court decisions that have precedential value.”

Recognizing that some warrant decisions in the FISA court are sealed to protect ongoing investigations, the media group argues that those decisions that interpret the law or set legal precedent should be made public.
A permanent legal advocate for the press and the public should be appointed in the FISA court. “Of particular concern to this coalition is the fact that media organizations would not be aware if they are the subject of a request to the FISA court and therefore would be unable to defend their interests before the court.”

This independent attorney advocate would have the appropriate security clearance to defend public and media interests before the court, serving as a counterpoint to government.

Support for additional discussion programs is needed. “The conclusions reached at the 2003 Aspen Institute conference about ‘best practices’ for American journalists were a good starting point and those discussions continued for some time until they tapered off. They should be revived and the Review Group should encourage the Obama administration to participate.”
The media coalition believes that a structured, ongoing dialogue can inform reporting on national security issues, leading to better understanding by the public.

Better communication between national security agencies and the news media is needed. “In cases that trigger legitimate national security concerns, officials need to be clearer and more specific in explaining the nature of the anticipated harm of publishing a given piece of information. Simply citing national security does not provide a media outlet with sufficient information to weigh the potential harms of publishing against the public’s interest in knowing the facts.”

In addition to making sure agency press officers understand and respect deadline requests and that someone be available at all times, agency personnel must also be clear that the risk posed by disclosure involves significant harm to national security, not just controversy or embarrassment.

“This summer, when the Reporters Committee similarly organized a media coalition for discussions with the Justice Department over guidelines for subpoenaing journalists, we were assured that DOJ was committed to not prosecuting journalists simply for newsgathering and to reforming how it attempts to use of journalists’ records during investigations. We appreciate the opportunity to open a second dialogue, this time with national security officials, on similar subjects,” said Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce D. Brown.

Joining the Reporters Committee on the Review Group letter were: ABC, Inc.; Advance Publications, Inc.; Allbritton Communications Company; ALM Media, LLC; American Society of News Editors; The Associated Press; Atlantic Media, Inc.; Bloomberg L.P.; Cable News Network, Inc.; California Newspaper Publishers Association; Courthouse News Service; Dow Jones & Company, Inc.; The E.W. Scripps Company; and the First Amendment Coalition.

Also: Fox News Network LLC; Gannett Co., Inc.; Hearst Corporation; Investigative Reporters and Editors; Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University; Journal Communications, Inc.; The McClatchy Company; Media Consortium; National Press Photographers Association; National Public Radio, Inc.; The New York Times Company; The New Yorker; Newspaper Association of America; North Jersey Media Group Inc.; POLITICO LLC; Radio Television Digital News Association; Reporters Without Borders; Reuters America LLC; The Seattle Times Company; Society of Professional Journalists; Tribune Company; and The Washington Post.

www.rcfp.org

A pattern of stifling democracy with formalities

http://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php

Patriot Act author moves to shut down parallel government

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/nsa-surveillance-patriot-act-author-bill

Greenwald's column on the Downie report
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/10/cpi-report-press-freedoms-obama