Give credit to Jake Tapper, senior White House correspondent for ABC News, who in a press conference today challenged the Obama Administration for celebrating aggressive journalists that have died in Syria as it simultaneously goes after similar journalism in the United States.

Tapper put up a blog post at ABC News with a video and transcript of the remarks. Read the full exchange between White House press secretary Jay Carney there.

The correspondent for ABC News set up his question on the inconsistency by noting that the White House continues to praise journalists like Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik as well as Anthony Shadid, all people killed covering the carnage in Syria recently. He then asked, “How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court?”

You’re — currently I think that you’ve invoked [the Espionage Act a] sixth time, and before the Obama administration, it had only been used three times in history. You’re — this is the sixth time. You’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States. The administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States.

Carney’s answer to all this was typical waffling and hedging that you would expect from a press secretary for the White House. He said he would hesitate to address “any particular case.” He then offered platitudes on why it is important to support journalists putting themselves in “dangerous situations.” Then, finally, he got to saying something that resembled an answer to Tapper’s question:

I — as for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly sensitive classified information, and I think that, you know, those are — divulging or to — divulging that kind of information is a serious issue, and it always has been.

Then Tapper did what all members of the press corps should do on a daily basis. He challenged Carney.

TAPPER: So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?

CARNEY: Well, that’s not at all what I’m saying, Jake, and you know it’s not. Again, I can’t — specific –

TAPPER: That’s what the Justice Department’s doing.

CARNEY: Well, you’re making a judgment about a broad array of cases, and I can’t address those specifically.

TAPPER: It’s also the judgment that a lot of whistleblowers’ organizations and good government groups are making as well.

CARNEY: Not one that I’m going to make.

Not wanting to address any specific cases is a bit like claiming the administration doesn’t comment on any ongoing investigations.

The most glaring problem with Carney’s indifference to the gravity of this question is that the war on whistle blowing isn’t only about whether classified information is released or not. There are journalists who are victims of this. The war is not limited to federal employees who decided to blow the whistle on crimes, misconduct or something they knew that they felt needed to be public.

The Justice Department is currently trying to make New York Times reporter James Risen reveal information on confidential sources he spoke with for a chapter from his book, State of War, which details how the CIA botched its effort to sabotage Iranian nuclear research. They want him to testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former member of the CIA who is charged with leaking classified information to Risen.

The decision to force Risen to reveal information on his sources and violate “reporter’s privilege” is why ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, National Public Radio and NBC, and print media including The Associated Press, Bloomberg, Hearst, McClatchy, Newsweek, The New York Daily News, Reuters, Scripps-Howard, Time, the Tribune Company, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are all urging a district court judge to not force Risen to testify.

Charlie Savage of the New York Times reported that a friend-of-the-court brief was filed by these media organizations along with other “good government” organizations. The brief called the protection of confidential sources essential to protecting the free flow of information to the public. They also argued “no circuit court has ever endorsed the government’s contention that the reporter’s privilege does not protect the compelled disclosure of confidential sources in criminal trials in federal courts.” [Read the full brief here.]

Even more troubling, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, according to Savage, “ruled that Mr. Risen was protected by a qualified “reporter’s privilege” that allowed her to balance whether it was necessary to force him to disclose his sources. She contended that Mr. Risen’s testimony was not crucial because prosecutors could use other evidence against Mr. Sterling.” Nonetheless, the Justice Department under the Obama Administration still remains committed to forcing Risen to reveal his confidential sources.

The impact on media organizations, if Risen is forced to testify, could be chilling. No reporter or media organization wants to be embroiled in a legal battle. A precedent allowing the government to force reporters to reveal sources would mean even more reporters and media outlets shy away from major national security stories that will inevitably draw the ire of government officials, who are upset that they are being scrutinized.

The whole war on whistleblowing gives credence to people like former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, who really have no respect for freedom of the press and support prosecuting journalists.

Here’s what Bennett said on Meet the Press in 2007.

…The American people, in fact, believe in a free press, as I do, and I don’t believe in prior restraint of the press. But the American people are saying, if you listen to them in very, very large and consistent numbers—and an awful lot of people across the board are saying this—is four times now, four times in eight months, Dana Priest’s story, the National Surveillance Security Agency monitoring story, the USA Today story about data mining. “Oh, sorry,” they tell us on Friday, “We maybe got that wrong. Our sources were wrong.”

And, it undermines the ability of good investigative journalists like the Washington Post‘s Dana Priest to do their work. Priest was on the same edition of Meet the Press as Bennett and responded to his scorn for press freedom:

It’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that. Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena.

One of the many businesses in Newark spied on by NYPD (photo from report released by AP)

(update below)

The New York Police Department (NYPD) built databases on Muslim-owned businesses and places of worship, according to a report from the Associated Press. The surveillance operation relied on ethnic profiling to produce demographic maps of Long Island, New York, and Newark, New Jersey. The Newark Police Department worked with the NYPD, but according to the AP, city’s mayor, Cory Booker, never was informed of the operation.

“Plainclothes officers from the NYPD’s Demographic Units” moved throughout Newark, took photos and eavesdropped on conversations. A 60-page report shows police specifically cataloged all the “Islamic Religious Institutions” in Newark. But, in the report, there is no mention of “terrorism or criminal behavior.”

Booker was shocked to see the report. He said, “Wow,” and told AP, “This raises a number of concerns. It’s just very, very sobering.” For example, one concern: when the report was put together, a “former high-ranking NYPD official” was running the Newark Police Department.

That official, Garry McCarthy, is now superintendent of Chicago police. He claims no Newark police officers were used in the operation in 2007. He was notified as a courtesy, not because NYPD wanted Newark police to be involved.

This part of the report on Newark shows how a center became a “Location of Concern.” It provides clear indication that the police intended to profile entire ethnic populations in Newark and Long Island and were not tracking any suspected terror groups:

The notes provide further revelations on the surveillance. Each business that sold halal food appears to have been noted. There is no clear reason to note this fact unless there are members of law enforcement who fear these Muslim businesses are here to institute Sharia Law in America.

An internet cafe owned by Hispanics is noted as a place where there is “no restriction” on “internet usage.” There is “no ID” required for “internet usage.” And, the place “only accepts cash for internet usage.”

The report notes the proximity of each “identified” business to places of worship in the community.

In a couple instances, it appears the undercover cops felt they were being watched. At Masjid Rahmah, “observed active and aggressive counter surveillance” is noted. At the National Islamic Association, “active counter surveillance” is “observed.”

The other report that AP released, which covers surveillance in Nassau County, New York (Long Island), shows NYPD mapped “population centers and business districts of communities of interest.” Like Newark, they found out where all people of Arab, Bangladeshi, Guyanese, Indian, Iranian, Pakistani and Turkish descent lived in Nassau County.

This report also notes which businesses sell or serve halal meat. It also notes the number of seats in each of the restaurants.

One site singled out is a Hookah cafe and lounge that “caters to college students and plays Hip Hop music at night” and is owned by Egyptians, Pakistanis and African Americans. Another site, Cleopatra, a small sized store for “Middle Eastern food and groceries, is noted for having “Al Jazeera news” on the television.

Yemeni-owned businesses are noted, but there is no “demographic” map for Yemenis. It seems they were categorized as “Arab.”

A section, “Locations Requiring Further Examination,” includes an “Unnamed Mosque and School” the police seem to have presumed was owned by a “Pakistani female.” Also listed is a “warehouse” for Friday prayer and, finally, a place called Darul Tabligh North America (DNA) is listed because its “primary goal” is “to assist the community in North America to fulfill its responsibility of imparting religious education to the upcoming generations, also to become a source of information on Islam for the public at large.” Educating young people on Islamic tradition seems to be suspect to whomever made this note.

As the AP makes clear, “residents had no reason to suspect the NYPD was watching them.” Most Muslims understand the fear that Americans have after 9/11. But, the police, as one “American-born citizen who converted to Islam” tells AP, do not want to “stop by, say hello,” meet business owners and customers and get to know the community. “They just want to keep tabs” on Muslims.

Finally, for those who excuse this operation by saying it is necessary to keep America “safe,” here’s a section of the news story worth considering:

Ironically, because officers conducted the operation covertly, the reports contains mistakes that could have been easily corrected had the officers talked to store owners or imams. If police ever had to rely on the database during an unfolding terrorism emergency as they had planned, those errors would have hindered their efforts.

For instance, locals said several businesses identified as belonging to African-American Muslims actually were owned by Afghans or Pakistanis. El-Sioufi’s mosque is listed as an African-American mosque, but he said the imam is from Egypt and the congregation is a roughly even mix of black converts and people of foreign ancestries.

The database put together may not even be reliable. Because the NYPD would rather be a spy organization than a community law enforcement agency, there is no guarantee that this project would not hinder a counterterrorism operation in the future.

And, those college students that regularly go to the Hookah lounge that regularly plays hip hop music should watch out. This lounge seems like a nice spot for launching a future FBI sting operation to target, groom and entrap the next Muslim “terrorist.” So, watch out for what passionate and possibly erratic “followers” of Islam might ask you to do.

Update

Mayor Cory Booker has strongly condemned the NYPD’s spying on places of worships and businesses in Newark.

Booker, a rising star in the Democratic Party, says he was offended to read a 2007 NYPD report that catalogued all his city’s mosques and Muslim businesses. Police Director Samuel DeMaio said the NYPD simply asked local police to show them around the city. He says Newark officers had no idea it was part of the NYPD’s effort to build databases on where Muslims eat, work, shop and pray.

DeMaio called what details on the surveillance operation “troubling.”

*

And, the spying has inspired Gawker to put together the “NYPD Guide to Newark’s Best Muslim Restaurants.“

The above comes from VisualizingPalestine.org. The site creators say it uses “creative visuals to describe a factual rights-based narrative of Palestine/Israel.” In this case, we have a brilliant graphic showing past heroes for social justice who have gone on hunger strike and what happens to the human body as they carry out a strike.

Khader Adnan, a Palestinian arbitrarily detained by Israel under an administrative detention order, ended his hunger strike yesterday. He had been on strike for sixty-six days. And, it appears he now holds a place in history as a person who engaged in the longest hunger strike in world history.

Such an achievement is not an achievement for the Guinness Book of World Records. Adnan should not have had to go on hunger strike. Administrative detention should not be a tool employed by Israel or any country. Once arrested, people should be immediately charged and afforded due process regardless of what kind of threat the government might think the person may pose to their country.

That I have to type that previous sentence and make such a statement is saddening. Of course, countries like Israel (and others which use administrative detention) use it to maintain systems of oppression. In Israel’s case, Adnan is detained to maintain apartheid. If we consider the US, Guantanamo detainees are held indefinitely to perpetuate the “war on terror.”

For a full story on Khader Adnan (published yesterday), go here.