He writes, “Let’s be entirely honest here. The attempt to force the organizers to honor Bradley Manning as the grand marshal, even if it is only symbolic, is nothing short of a cynical attempt to hijack what is arguably one of the biggest pride parades in world, particularly in a year in which such great strides have been made in LGBQT equality.”

As someone who has, unlike Tbogg, actually been covering this as a reporter and not merely as a snarky commentator, that is a total smear. A former Grand Marshal, Joey Cain, was part of the electoral college, which in all past years has had the ability to nominate and vote for a Grand Marshal. He nominated Manning. Pride sent out ballots with Manning listed as a nominee, who former Grand Marshals could vote for in the election. Therefore, if this was a “cynical attempt to hijack what is arguably one of the biggest pride parades in the world,” then Pride has itself to blame for being in on it.

“Although the treatment of Manning by the US government is nothing short of criminal, his prosecution has nothing to do with his gayness…” Except, as someone who has, unlike Tbogg, actually been covering Manning as a reporter and not merely as a snarky commentator, it should be stated that his gayness was used against him while he was confined at Quantico. “Rave dancing” in his cell was cited as part of the rationale for keeping him on “prevention of injury” status, which gave the brig the ability to keep him in conditions that essentially amounted to solitary confinement.

While he was in the military, soldiers would make fun of his size and how they thought he was gay. He was listening to Lady GaGa while he was transmitting the information to WikiLeaks.

And, how about this for how Bradley Manning’s story is a queer story?

On January 23, 2010, he was on “mid-tour leave” and visited his boyfriend Tyler Watkins in the Boston area. He said Watkins “did not seem very excited” about his “return from Iraq.” He tried to talk to him about their relationship, but he “refused to make any plans.”

Manning asked what he would do if he saw Iraq and Afghanistan military incident reports of which he had access and thought the public deserved to read. Watkins had no “specific answer.” He tried to follow what Manning was saying but was confused. Manning tried to be more specific yet he was asking “too many questions.”

The conversation was dropped because he could not explain his dilemma. And, after a few days, he felt he’d overstayed his welcome and left to spend the rest of his time on leave in the Washington, DC, area with his aunt.

Tbogg continues, “Whether Manning is a hero or a traitor or something in-between is open to debate, but trying to pass him off as a hero to, or as representative of, the gay community is the height of blatant opportunism by Manning supporters. Obviously I don’t speak for the gay community, but I’d find it highly disrespectful that some people would try and use my movement as a delivery device for their message.”

He concludes, “In other words; don’t piss on my leg and call it a rainbow. If you want to support Bradley Manning, get your own damn parade.”

Neither Tbogg nor anyone who is liberal or progressive should have the authority to apply a litmus test to individuals who sections of a community want to elevate and celebrate. As “tcandew” said in a comment:

Are we to not celebrate the achievements of African Americans when those achievements don’t directly involve civil rights?

Would it only have been ok to honor manning if the cables he leaked exposed nefarious shit about the US governments treatment of gays and not innocent civilians (of who knows what sexuality) halfway around the world?

Or, as Cain told me in an interview:

I got news: the gay community is part of the larger human community. So, when someone does something that exposes the US military’s crimes, that may embarrass the US, but this is stuff Americans should know and the world should know. To me that benefits gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and I don’t buy this argument that he’s done nothing for the gay community because we have this narrow definition of what that means. It’s ridiculous.

He added, “The idea that a gay person who does a heroic act that benefits humanity should not be a Grand Marshal for Pride is reprehensible.”

People who say Manning just “happens to be gay” to argue Manning should not be honored are also attempting to strip away his gay identity.

Tbogg went after a commenter:

…You want to use the Pride parade to make YOUR political point. You want to co-opt it and it is no different than if you wanted to use the parade to promote wind farms or protest fracking. They’re both good ideas but they’re not what the parade is about…

News flash: Pride parades have historically been political. Only with the increased corporatization of Pride parades and celebrations have they become more muted in their politics. However, individuals have always used Pride to call for marriage equality and they have even considered using Pride to oppose war.

So, is Tbogg commenting only because he is upset with Manning supporters? Or is this really about his view of Manning’s case?

Indiscriminately dumping a half million documents (which he could have no way of knowing what they contained) into the public domain just to see what happens is not heroic, it’s felony reckless. Had he limited himself to just releasing the video and attendant documents, you might have a point but he put a lot of people, including Afghan citizens, at risk.

Or maybe that’s just collateral damage to you.

The answer is this is about his view of Manning’s case.

One more time, as someone who has actually covered this story as a reporter and not simply as a snarky commentator who needed a break from skewering Tea Party politics, Manning did not dump any documents. He, in fact, did limit himself and did not release all of the documents of which he had access.

If Tbogg read Manning’s statement, he might realize that Manning actually made a careful calculated decision through research about which sets of documents he was going to disclose to WikiLeaks. But like an over-zealous military prosecutor, he parrots this idea that Manning’s leaks put people’s lives at risk.

Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel and policy advisor in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, and Jordan Bloom, associated editor of The American Conservative, were also on the program during the segment. [Listen to the discussion here. Conversation begins at the 32:00 mark.]

Steiner said, “We’re talking about going after the press, going after America’s right to know. This is nothing that anybody at the AP that exposed anything in Yemen that was not about to become public knowledge or interfere with our operations. We’re talking about someone trying to do investigative reporting to find out what’s going on. That’s what’s so frightening.”

The point was made by Rottman that this is not just about protecting the press but rather protecting the First Amendment. “It’s about us and it’s about our ability to know what the government is doing. And that’s especially important in national security cases where the government has vast authority to keep what it’s doing secret.”

He described the chilling effect the seizure could have on reporting:

…Reporters are going to be wary of giving sources assurances of confidentiality because they know they can’t keep that promise because the government is going to break it. Sources are going to be wary of even taking phone calls from the press because they know that if they even get the phone call it’s quite possible they’ll show up on the phone records that are seized by the Department of Justice in a leak investigation. Reporters are not going to be able to rely on telephones to do their jobs…

Reporters may have to use “burners”—throwaway telephones when communicating with sources—just like drug dealers.

“This is actually sort of a problem with the classification as a whole. Leaks are vilified by folks in Congress and the [Obama] administration,” Bloom added. “But, when it comes down to it, there’s really no incentive for the administration to classify information and so all kinds of stuff that really shouldn’t be classified and is absolutely in the public interest gets classified. So, these leaks are a part of the news media trying to do it’s job and fill its function in our democracy and under our Constitution in the face of this broken classification system. ”

I made several points based off what I have written here at Firedoglake. Most importantly, I had an opportunity to address how presenting the decision to seize AP records as part of trying to maintain a “balance” between national security and press freedom serves those in power, especially since it gives them a way to excuse what would otherwise be considered abuses of authority. [Again, to hear the discussion, go here. Begins at 32:00 mark.]

*

Head of the House Intelligence Committee and former FBI agent, Republican Representative Mike Rogers, has criticized the seizure of the AP records. He said on Bloomberg Television, “It doesn’t appear to me to be appropriate.”

“It seems like it’s a year into the investigation, and they cast a very large dragnet, which tells me that they probably don’t know the answers quite yet,” Rogers added. “Normally, in an investigation like this, if you’re going to do something that’s that sensitive, you would have a very clear thing that you’re trying to determine.”

In June, Rogers was part of the GOP push for a special counsel to investigate leaks. He declared then, “It’s pretty hard not to call it treason when someone is leaking this type of information. I don’t know for what gain, but when it causes this much damage to our ability to continue to do what we do, including putting lives at risk, pretty dangerous stuff.”

Now, he may not support inappropriate dragnet surveillance, but, with a background with the FBI, that is doubtful. It is politically opportunistic for him to give tepid criticism of Obama, as if he did not fuel the political climate that ultimately drove the White House to give the Justice Department the green light to pursue leaks investigations.

*

Another quick note: the environment was already chilly for journalists prior to this news around the Justice Department’s seizure of AP phone records.

New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson recently said in a speech given to journalists at the annual Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in June 2012:

The chilling effect of leaks prosecutions threatens to rob the public of vital information. Sources fear legal retribution for simply talking to reporters. Anyone examining the case of Thomas Drake, a whistleblower who was prosecuted, and what his family went through during his ultimately botched prosecution would think twice before ever talking to a reporter. Reporters fear being subpoenaed in these cases and possibly prosecuted themselves. Several reporters who have covered national security in Washington for decades tell me that the environment has never been tougher or information harder to dislodge. One Times reporter [says] the environment in Washington has never been more hostile to reporting.

This act by the Justice Department means it will get worse for journalists, which should alarm all Americans.

*

On Sunday at 5 pm EST, I will hosting an FDL Book Salon chat with James Goodale, former counsel for the New York Times, who argued the Pentagon Papers case. We’ll be talking about his book, Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.

Goodale recently appeared on “Democracy Now!” Watch his interview and then join the discussion tomorrow, as now more than ever we should be contemplating and discussing issues around freedom of the press.

The Pentagon decided to have CNN interview a female guard who could talk about the “dire conditions” that guards face at the prison. “For the first time,” Lawrence said, “we’re seeing the faces of those who guard the detainees.”

“They use extremely vulgar language toward females and I have a lot of experience with that unfortunately. So, especially Caucasian females, they don’t like us at all,” the female guard says. “They’ll say things like, ‘I’ll piss all over your face.’” They’ll call her a “whore,” a “slut” and say, “You’re trash now.”

The prisoners engage in “splashing,” where they mix water, urine and feces and throw it at guards. It is, according to this guard, the “biggest way to act out,” and has “been happening consistently for the last month and a half. Every single day there’s a splashing.”

This female guard appears to be pretty young so it is likely she has no idea about the history of the prison and how it was setup by the Bush administration to be outside the law so it would be easier to not give the prisoners due process rights.

Many of these people throwing feces and slurs at her have been imprisoned without charge or trial for over eleven years. Many have not seen their families or home for over a decade.

Interviews and tours like this are all arranged by the Pentagon, and the military only has guards or officers at the prison participate in “exclusive” interviews because it will help the Pentagon present the prison to the public in the way it wants the prison to be perceived. In this case, the segment undercuts allegations of abuse by Guantanamo prisoners’ attorneys and those in the human rights community, as it gives voice to a young female guard, who the Pentagon wants the public to know has been a victim of aggressive acts by prisoners.

There is no context provided for the “splashings.” CNN’s Lawrence does not know how the guards ultimately ended up being hit by “water, urine and feces” or if they ever incite prisoners into acting out. Lawrence does not share whether the “splashings” are a way of retaliating against abusive guards.

That is not to condone the throwing of any mixture of bodily waste at military officers, but rather to say that this report does not help the public truly understand what is going on at Guantanamo.

One might recall in March, the military granted “exclusive” access to Robert Johnson of Business Insider for a report. He purportedly uncovered the “other side of the Gitmo strike.” Prisoners have it pretty good at Guantanamo because they are able to “enjoy a selection of six balanced meals, 25 cable TV channels, classes, and,” most importantly, “an array of electronic gadgetry and entertainment, Nintendo DS consoles and Playstation 3 access with a library full of games.” Why worry about being indefinitely detained without charge or trial when you can eat regular meals and play “Angry Birds” every day?

In the same way that Johnson’s story functioned as propaganda to undercut stories coming out about the hunger strike in March, CNN’s interview functions as propaganda by purporting to tell the untold story of how abusive and difficult it is to be on duty at Guantanamo.

It may be hard to be an active participant in a festering example of cruelty, but the public affairs staff’s intent, in approving this interview, is to show the barbarians are the prisoners, not the guards.

Now, the Pentagon probably does not want guards to empathize with prisoners, but imagine having ten years of life stolen by a superpower in the world. There is little that can be done by the human rights community and the international community, including the United Nations, to force the US to set prisoners free. They are only going to be released when the Pentagon is in such a crisis that they cannot handle hunger-striking prisoners anymore because they are afraid a good portion are going to die.

Whatever stress or abuse guards are experiencing is unfortunate, but this situation exists because the US government setup an offshore prison that could be out of sight and out of mind, where prisoners could languish for years without legal recourse whatsoever. The government is now paying for depriving prisoners of their dignity and rights by abusing, brutalizing, degrading, mistreating and neglecting their humanity over the past decade. And so, the plain fact is there would be no throwing of feces if Obama had followed through with his promise and taken more of a political risk to actually close the prison, as he committed to doing in the first months of office.

Times Square demonstration, April 29, 2013 (Creative Commons-licensed Photo by Ebola Cereal)

It has now been one hundred days since prisoners being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison launched a hunger strike. According to the Miami Herald‘s Carol Rosenberg, the Pentagon says 102 prisoners are now on hunger strike, and thirty are being “tube-fed.”

The hunger strike was sparked in February. As noted in a letter sent by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and habeas counsel to military officials in March, “Since approximately February 6, 2013, camp authorities have been confiscating detainees’ personal items, including blankets, sheets, towels, mats, razors, toothbrushes, books, family photos, religious CDs, and letters, including legal mail; and restricting their exercise, seemingly without provocation or cause,” the letter read. And, “Arabic interpreters employed by the prison have been searching the men’s Qur’ans in ways that constitute desecration according to their religious beliefs, and that guards have been disrespectful during prayer times.”

Defense lawyers have claimed that, throughout the majority of the hunger strike, well over a hundred prisoners have been participating. The Pentagon only began to acknowledge publicly that a strike was happening in March. After that acknowledgment, the number of prisoners it said were on strike gradually escalated to thirty or forty prisoners.

There was a military lockdown of Guantanamo prisoners on April 13. Prisoners were removed from communal areas and placed in single-cell confinement. After this happened, the official Pentagon number of hunger strikers sharply escalated to 92 by April 24. Over the past weeks, it has gone up by 12 prisoners.

The number of prisoners being force-fed by the military also increased after the lockdown of prisoners. Since April 13, the number has gone from 13 prisoners being force-fed to 30 prisoners being force-fed.

The Pentagon sanitizes this practice by referring to it as “tube-feeding.” That term does not make it apparent that the military is forcing tubes down prisoners’ throats and essentially torturing them.

Carlos Warner, an assistant federal defender who represents 10 prisoners on hunger strike, described the force-feeding process to Newsweek.

“It begins with these men being forcibly extracted from their cells and taken to a common area.” This is done by an Emergency Reaction Force (ERF) made up of five military officers in riot gear. They have been known to brutally manhandle prisoners and even assault them as they move prisoners from their cells.

Warner says the technician straps the men into a chair, “the legs, the stomach, the chest, the arms and the head.” Many men struggle against the entire feeding process.

“A tube is inserted into the nose and it is described as a tube that is too large, and the men asked for a smaller tube,” according to Warner, but those requests have been ignored. “They’re jammed into the nose by a technician because doctors will not participate in this process as it is a clear violation of medical ethics. The technicians often do not find the right path, and they cause bleeding. And, when they do find the right path, it is described as razor blades passing down the back of a man’s throat.”

“As it hits the throat, the gagging reflex begins and breathing is difficult as it presses against the windpipe,” Warner explains. “When the tube hits the stomach, if the formula is pumped in too fast, the men will instantly vomit. If it is pumped at a reasonable rate, a half hour or more, hunger pains return. After three months, there is no hunger and one of the most torturous parts about it this is that hunger returns each time and this happens twice a day. It’s happening, we believe, to the majority of men in Guantanamo.”

Upon completion of the forced feeding, “Sometimes the technician will rip the tube from their noses and without hesitation insert the same tube into the man next to them.”

Warner finds, “This is a torturous and barbaric practice that must end. These are innocent men, who’ve made a voluntary decision to die because our government will not release them, but instead of releasing them, our government chooses to force-feed them.”

Dr. Gerald Thomson, a former president of the American College of Physicians, has stated, “You’re kept in the chair for at least two hours, usually more than two hours, to prevent you from vomiting and undermining the force-feeding. You can’t go to the bathroom during that time. Your dignity is taken away. The World Medical Association and international officials have clearly identified that process as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. And whatever the—given the level of brutality, it could extend to torture.”

Thomson worked on a report put out by The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment in mid-April. The report not only contained a thorough examination of instances of US torture under President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton but also highlighted the Pentagon’s policy toward handling hunger strikes.

Remarkably, when Task Force Staff spoke to then Joint Task Force Guantanamo commander, Rear Admiral David Woods, in January 2012, he characterized hunger strikes as “a tool used by [detainees] to stay in the fight.” A Pentagon official, who accompanied the Task Force staff, added, hunger strikes are in “the Manchester Manual,” an alleged Al Qaeda training document.” This is “why they do it.”

Woods was asked to clarify how prison authorities would distinguish “between detainees who engage in hunger strikes to protest their indefinite detention and detainees who have been found to have links to Al Qaeda and the Manchester Manual.” The answer he gave was, “We consider anyone undertaking hunger strikes to be continuing the fight against the US government.”

There have been numerous reports from Guantanamo defense attorneys alleging abuse or torture against prisoners engaged in the hunger strike and prisoners, who are speaking out about the conditions of their confinement.

The latest report of inhumane treatment involves sexual abuse. Legal representative for multiple Guantanamo prisoners, Clive Stafford Smith, suggested “guards are now subjecting inmates to humiliating body searches if they want to speak to lawyers.” David Remes, a Guantanamo attorney, told AFP, “Under the new search policy, a detainee who leaves his camp is subject to a search including his private parts and holding his private parts.”

The treatment, according to Remes and Smith, is leading to prisoners refusing to take legal calls because they do not want to experience abuse. And, these tactics used on prisoners should be understood as part of a covert effort to break the hunger strike.

*

It has become an often-cited statistic, but it merits mention again, given the continued detention of prisoners at Guantanamo: 86 of the 166 prisoners in the prison have been cleared for release by President Obama’s own Review Task Force, which was comprised of representatives from all the major national security or intelligence agencies in government. Eighty-six people have been deemed completely innocent and have been found to pose absolutely no threat whatsoever yet they remain at Guantanamo.

“Most of the 166 men still imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in southern Cuba are Yemenis—at least 88, by the Yemeni government’s count, plus a few Saudis of Yemeni descent,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “Of the 86 prisoners approved by a presidential task force four years ago for transfer out of Gitmo, 59 are Yemenis — and their new government wants them back.”

Forty-eight prisoners have been deemed “too dangerous to release,” but that does not necessarily mean the government intends to charge them with a crime. The Obama administration has tried to transfer them to a federal detention facility in the contiguous United States, where they could be held for an indefinite period. That has been opposed by human rights groups, which demand the administration charge and put prisoners on trial or release them.

Protests are being held today all over the world, in front of the White House and in London  Sydney, New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Anchorage, Eureka, California, Amherst, Massachusetts, Toledo, Ohio, and Charlottesville, Virginia. The demands by Amnesty International and other human rights groups are to transfer detainees cleared for release and appoint a high level official to lead the effort to close Guantanamo.

“As the hunger strike at Guantanamo passes its 100^th day, my clients’ bodies are breaking down, but their resolve and spirit have never been stronger,” declared Omar Farah, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “When I met with Tariq Ba Odah on April 30, he told me: ‘We have nothing left to lose, but I have never seen such high morale in the prisoners. We will endure anything to be free.’ That same day, President Obama vowed again to close Guantanamo. Words are not enough. After 11 years of indefinite detention without charge or trial, Tariq and the others trapped at the prison cannot wait any longer. The president must use every tool at his disposal to release the prisoners he will not try in a fair court and finally shutter Guantanamo, once and for all. Every day he delays tempts an awful fate.”

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, has noted that Obama is the “commander-in-chief” and the “most powerful man in the world.” He is capable of emptying the prison, whether it is fully shut down or not. He should “stop blaming Congress and muster the moral courage to close the prison and end this shameful chapter in US history.”

Protest against SF Pride outside its office on May 7, right before a scheduled public meeting (Creative Commons-licensed Photo by Steve Rhodes)

A member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Supervisor David Campos, has spoken out on the ongoing scandal involving San Francisco Pride’s decision to not honor Pfc. Bradley Manning as a Grand Marshal of the Pride parade. He has urged Pride to hold a public meeting before this year’s parade and celebration on June 30 instead of after. Pride CEO Earl Plante is also outright lying or, at best, deliberately misrepresenting Pride’s actions in interviews with media.

These developments are the latest in a controversy that began back in April when the gay soldier, who disclosed information to WikiLeaks and is facing a US military prosecution, was announced as a Grand Marshal only to have Pride put out a statement retracting the award as a “mistake.”

The statement from President Lisa Williams and the Board of Directors also declared, “Even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms [sic] way the lives of our men and women in uniform — and countless others, military and civilian alike — will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride. It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country.”

In a story published yesterday, Plante is interviewed by the LGBT media organization Bay Area Reporter saying “no military folks pressured them to withdraw Manning’s honor.” That is an outright lie.

The former grand marshal who nominated Manning for Grand Marshal, Joey Cain, told Firedoglake he spoke to a Pride staff person on the day he was announced as a Grand Marshal and had his name published as a Grand Marshal in BAR. The staff person said the organization was getting “hundreds of phone calls, more calls than we’ve ever gotten since I’ve got here from people who are pissed off Bradley Manning is grand marshal.” So, as Cain said, “That is a lie that they say they got nothing from the military community.”

Plante may be correct when he says, “No one called us and no one pulled out.” To the extent that no actual branches or offices in the US military called Pride to complain, it may be true that Pride “didn’t hear from the military.” However, “military folks” were overt in their threats to go after sponsors if the organization went ahead and honored Manning.

A meeting on May 7 was to be an opportunity for the San Francisco Bay area community to share their concerns with the way Pride had handled this decision, but Pride refused to get a big enough room to accommodate more than a handful of people from the public. When over one hundred people showed up, only a few people managed to get in to the room where the meeting was held to give public comments. Dozens were left in the hallways and on the stairwell in the building where the office is located. People also remained outside on the street chanting in protest because Pride was proceeding with a meeting without having everyone, who wanted to participate, in the same room.

Plante said to BAR, ”The whole brouhaha – I as CEO take responsibility for it,” and, “Pride is all about integrity, transparency, and openness. We attempted to have a meeting and unfortunately a few bad apples took over the meeting.”

According to Gary Virginia, a former grand marshal who voted for Manning and was at the May 7 meeting, this is a gross misrepresentation. “Bad apples” did not cause the meeting to be canceled. He said he came into the meeting ten minutes after it was to start and informed them people were locked outside and asked why they had started the meeting without waiting for members of the public. Another individual, Starchild, asked why the Board was denying media with cameras access to the meeting. They both interrupted the meeting, but the interruptions were to protest how Pride was improperly running the meeting.

There also was a hired security guard from Yojimbo, who could have been directed to remove anybody from the meeting at any time. The Board did not have him remove anyone, who was disrupting the meeting, so the meeting could not possibly have been shut down because of a “few bad apples.” In fact, it is much more likely that the Board realized they created a situation and could not continue the meeting and would have to reschedule it because they had erred.

Both Cain and Virginia point out there is an LGBT community center with large rooms right across the street from the building where Pride has its office. In the days before the meeting, Pride could have reserved a large room that could have accommodated the 125 or so people, who attended the meeting.

On May 12, this statement went up on the organization’s Facebook page:

…SF Pride’s decision concerning the election process of Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal being consistent with SF Pride’s long standing Grand Marshal election policy is firm. Thus, the discussion of that matter is closed for this year.

A meeting in a larger venue after the 2013 Celebration and Parade will allow people from all sides of that issue and others to fully air and hear one another’s viewpoints, without jeopardizing the production of this year’s event and the safety and security of the attendees. We ask everyone in the community to come together in Pride this June, recognizing that we can embrace difference without violence and hate… [emphasis added]

That sparked more outrage. Numerous people posted comments and then found they were being censored or hidden by someone in charge of the Facebook page. Many of the comments later reappeared on the post, but, if they were heavily critical of Pride, they disappeared for a period of time so the comments could be vetted and that fueled even more disgust with the organization.

Plante, in his interview with BAR, “decried ‘vile’ comments directed at Williams on various social media sites, calling it ‘reprehensible.’” He stated, “I, as CEO, will not tolerate Lisa or anyone on our Board being in harm’s way,” and, “We can’t have a dialogue with people engaged in violent attacks.” The next meeting would be at a “larger venue” and would “include security.”

Plante is speaking a language that has been used against groups and organizations engaged in struggle or activism in US history. His talk about vile hate smears and allegations of “violent attacks,” which he has no evidence to back up, is all designed to marginalize people in the LGBT community upset with the organization.

Pride is “using classic authoritarian statist tactics,” Cain said. “They’re trying to make us look violent. They are trying to make us look hateful and that is the spin they are trying to pull off.”

It is not as if there is no justification for being upset. On top of all that has been done thus far, this week they did not hold a meeting that was supposed to take place on May 14. It is in their bylaws that every second Tuesday they hold their monthly meeting.

“To postpone until after Pride, the primary time when you want to meet with the constituents of your organization,” Virginia said, is “such an insult. It’s basically saying we’re not going to communicate to you and we don’t want to hear from you.”

If one reads the Bay Area Reporter story, it is as if they are having tremendous difficulty finding a location for the meeting. It could be held at the LGBT community center. Again, that is right across the street from the office. So, there is much more going on here than logistical problems. The cowardice of board members is getting in the way of management.

Virginia expressed his disgust with how the board “railroaded through a new ballot to the electoral college” that elects Grand Marshals. The deadline is Thursday, May 16. The votes will help elect a Grand Marshal to take the place of Manning.

“I’m not voting in the election. The election is a fraud,” according to Virginia. “The election was done exactly as it has been done in past years and because they didn’t like the winner and they chose to politicize a public process. It’s one thing to say, ‘We counted the votes wrong. We did an audit,’ and lay out the numbers and explain who the winner was, but they never did that. They have yet to release the data of how many votes were cast and who got the highest number of votes and who got the second highest number of votes.”

The Pride organization’s legitimacy is truly at stake. Cain, who was a Pride president for four years, argued the organization has been plagued by incompetency and arrogance over the past three years. The board ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Another CEO was brought in, and he started to rebuild credibility with sponsors and reduce the debt. But, what did the organization do? They replaced him.

“When I was on the Pride board, I was with a really strong group of people, a solid group of people who absolutely believed in transparency [and] didn’t just mouth the words like Earl Plante is doing,” Cain stated. “We actually allowed our members to come in and look at our books. We talked to people. We engaged people. We didn’t barricade ourselves behind a door in a boardroom. We went out into the community and talked to people, exactly what Earl Plante and Lisa Williams are not doing.”

Now, Plante claims there will be a meeting before the Pride Celebration & Parade because Supervisor Campos has made an issue out of it. Among those upset with Pride, there is skepticism. The board has been utterly craven so far. They have engaged in levels of deceit that few thought possible. They have been a prime example of how the liberal class is dying in this country. So, who knows if they will hold a meeting.

Regardless, if they want to remedy the situation, the first thing they can do is reinstate Manning as Grand Marshal, and they know that is the right thing to do. The Board does not want to do that, which is why they have done everything they can to avoid further addressing this controversy before the parade and celebration happens at the end of June 30.

White House spokesperson Jay Carney (Creative Commons-licensed Photo by Talk Radio News Service)

During a press briefing on Tuesday, White House spokesperson Jay Carney mechanically repeated a line when asked about the Justice Department’s seizure of the Associated Press’ phone records, suggesting President Barack Obama supports a “balance” between freedom of the press and national security.

“The president feels strongly that we need a—the press to be able to be unfettered in its pursuit of investigative journalism, and you saw, when he was a senator, the president co-sponsor legislation that would have provided further protections for journalists in this regard,” Carney said. “And he is also mindful of the need for secret and classified information to remain secret and classified in order to protect our national security interests. So there are — there is a careful balance here that must be attained.”

Challenged on whether the administration had actually managed to strike such a balance, a reporter asked, “This administration in the last four years has prosecuted twice as many leakers as every previous administration combined. How does that reflect balance?”

It is hard to imagine a robot giving a much different answer. Carney repeated what he had said, “The president is committed to the press’s ability to pursue information, to defending the First Amendment. He is also, as a citizen and as commander-in-chief, committed to the proposition that we cannot allow classified information to be — that can do harm to our national security interests or to endanger individuals to be — to be leaked. And that is a balance that has to be struck.”

The reporter stated, “But the record of the last four years does not suggest balance.” Carney reacted, “That’s your opinion.”

“No. It’s twice as many prosecutions as all previous administrations combined. That’s not even close,” the reporter replied.

“Well, I — I understand that there — you know, that there are ongoing investigations that preceded this administration,” Carney stated, as if the administration did not have the capacity to quash or abandon those investigations when they took power. The programmed flak for the White House then repeated his line about balance, and also said, “You’re not going to hear him say that it’s OK for the nation’s secrets to be freely reported when that information can endanger our national security and do harm to individuals and endanger individuals.”

“Do you think a fair analysis of this administration’s actions reflect the views you’ve just described?” the reporter asked.

The wily response he gave was, “I believe that the president supports balance and — and that he has made that clear, both as president and within his administration. You know, I — I cannot comment on the specific case, but I can tell you what the president believes in, what his actions have been in the past.” He could talk about Senator Obama, not President Barack Obama, because when he was a senator, he was not a commander-in-chief, someone who would find the compulsion to serve the national security state impossible to resist.

The Obama administration has not maintained any kind of a reasonable balance. The framing by the administration, where it is suggested that freedom must be balanced against national security interests, is not only a false choice but also a tension sustained to give the administration cover as it expands and claims new powers.

In exhibiting a disdain for the free flow of information, the administration has targeted a record number of alleged leakers or whistleblowers. It prosecuted former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who is now serving a 30-month jail sentence for providing the name of someone involved in the CIA’s rendition, detention & interrogation (RDI) program to a reporter. It pursued former NSA employee Thomas Drake, who provided details on fraud, waste, abuse and illegality to a Baltimore Sun reporter. It put former FBI linguist Shamai Leibowitz in prison for twenty months for providing a “blogger” documents on a possible Israeli strike on Iran.

The administration investigated and prosecuted former State Department arms expert Stephen Kim for sharing information with Fox News reporter James Rosen on how North Korea might respond to criticism of its nuclear program. It has pursued an innovative and relentless prosecution against Pfc. Bradley Manning, who has confessed to disclosing classified and over-classified information to WikiLeaks. It continued an investigation into Justice Department lawyer, Thomas Tamm, who provided details on warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush’s administration to Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times, until finally dropping the case in 2011. And, it has prosecuted former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was charged with providing information with New York Times reporter James Risen on an operation that might have led to Iran getting information on how to build a nuclear bomb.

The Justice Department under Obama has also targeted Risen in the Sterling case, arguing he does not have a right to claim reporters’ privilege and must divulge not only his sources of classified information but also for information “neither confidential or privileged.” According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), Risen has “faced three subpoenas in three years and has successfully invoked the First Amendment-based reporter’s privilege to refuse to testify at both the grand jury and trial stages of the federal prosecution.” Yet, the Justice Department has insisted on continuing its pursuit against him and, after argument before a federal appeals court in May 2012, Risen is awaiting a decision on whether he will have to reveal confidential sources and other information he managed to obtain while engaged in news reporting.

Drake, Kim, Kiriakou, Leibowitz, Manning and Sterling were each indicted under the Espionage Act—a World War I-era law intended to go after spies  and not government employees who leak information.

“Any time you prosecute someone for leaking it’s going to chill news sources and that investigation was launched to find the people who leaked,” former senior advisor to Obama, David Axelrod, acknowledged on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on May 15. That is exactly what has happened in each of these cases.

*

Such zealous pursuits of alleged leakers or whistleblowers has not been solely responsible for creating a climate that chills national security journalism. As the AP reported this year, though the “Obama administration answered more requests from the public to see government records under the Freedom of Information Act last year,” more than ever it is now citing “legal exceptions to censor or withhold the material” in order to “protect national security and internal deliberations.” It cited “national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times—a jump from over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama’s first year in office.”

The Obama administration has presided over a Justice Department that has empaneled a secret grand jury to investigate the media organization, WikiLeaks, for publishing classified information. It has subpoenaed personal data from the email and social media accounts of individuals linked to the organization, who worked on the release of the “Collateral Murder” video that showed a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed two Reuters employees and a “Good Samaritan,” who pulled up in a van to help the wounded employees.

The administration passed a Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that did not extend to national security whistleblowers. When Obama issued a directive to extend “whistleblower protections to the intelligence and national security communities,” it was toothless, with no legal enforcement mechanism that could meaningfully protect an individual from government retaliation.

A proposed federal media shield law the administration negotiated in 2009 died in Congress but not before a national security exception was carved into it to reduce the scope of protection for reporters. (Legislation has been reintroduced and will likely have this broad exception in it again.)

Recently, as former State Department employee Peter van Buren, who was forced out of the State Department for publishing a book on the corrupt “reconstruction” of Iraq, highlighted, the administration is seeking to expand the definition of “national security worker” to include “thousands of additional federal employees,” who do not even hold security clearances. Obama, in an effort that would limit the rights of workers, is “functionally moving to shrink the pool of potential whistleblowers.”

Van Buren also calls attention to the case of a federal air marshal, Robert MacLean, who went on TV in disguise in 2004 and criticized the “TSA dress code and its special boarding policies, which he believed allowed marshals to be easily identified by other passengers.” The government retroactively classified a message that was unclassified so they could fire and prosecute him.

“What happens with MacLean’s case potentially affects every future whistleblower,” Van Buren argued. “If the mere presence of a pseudo-classification on an item, even applied retroactively, negates whistleblower protections, it means dark days ahead for the right of the citizenry to know what the government is doing (or how it’s misbehaving) in its name. If so, no act of whistleblowing could be considered protected, since all the government would have to do to unprotect it is classify whatever was disclosed retroactively and wash its hands of the miscreant. Federal employees, not a risk-taking bunch to begin with, will react accordingly.”

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department refuse to inform the Times about whether they have been targeted like the AP, since they published information on Stuxnet. Plus, Holder is “not sure” how many times he has signed off on the seizure of journalists’ records, which is not all that comforting to say the least.

Some of the above may seem disconnected from freedom of the press, however, it all has profound implications for news media, as this shrinks the pool of possible sources for journalists. Government employees get the message that they have no free speech rights while working in government and, if they dare to test the government, they will fired and the Justice Department will craft a criminal case. Fostering such a culture among employees is effective in deterring an employee from returning the calls or emails of reporters, who actually seek the truth and do not simply settle for official talking points from government spokespeople.

Confidential news sources are how the public has found out about warrantless wiretapping, torture tactics used against detainees, CIA secret prisons, abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, plans the government had for a “neutron bomb” under President Jimmy Carter and, initially, the Pentagon Papers were provided by a confidential source.

Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who uncovered details on CIA secret prisons, has said, because “the US government has made secret nearly every aspect of its counterterrorism program, it would have been impossible to report on the basic contours of [the government's] decisions, operations and programs without the help of confidential sources.” But, this is exactly the kind of information the Obama administration wishes to suppress, as evidenced by its sanctioning of leaks investigations into the publishing of information on the secret “kill list,” cyber warfare against Iran (Stuxnet) and the CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen.

There simply is no way to take claims by this administration that it has “balanced” the ability of reporters to engage in “unfettered” investigative journalism with national security interests seriously. Every decision or policy has favored so-called national security over the First Amendment. And, only someone with a stake in defending this president’s reputation from critics would think differently.

Screen shot from C-SPAN3 of Attorney General Eric Holder appearing before the House Judiciary Committee

The answers given by Attorney General Eric Holder during his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee this afternoon certainly make it appear like his decision to recuse himself was a gutless decision, one he made because he knew when the press discovered the Associated Press had their phone records secretly seized they would be collectively outraged.

As reported over the past couple of days, the AP had phone records from a period of two months secretly seized. Records from twenty phone lines from multiple AP offices were obtained. Over a hundred journalists working in the AP offices were reportedly implicated as a result of the seizure.

The seizure happened as part of an investigation into a story published on May 7, 2012, involving a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. The story included leaked information from officials.

Holder recused himself early in the investigation into the leak and delegated authority to Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole, which means he would be the one in charge of deciding whether to subpoena records from press organizations.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wi) attempted to pin down who authorized the subpoena. Though Holder delegated that authority to Cole, Holder would not clearly and unequivocally state that Cole had authorized the subpoena. It was only after a staff member handed him a note that he was comfortable with confirming that Cole had indeed authorized the subpoena.

Holder was apparently interviewed by the FBI as a part of the investigation into the leak because he had possessed the information. Sensenbrenner asked him if he was a witness or if being interviewed was a part of his official duty as attorney general.

“I was interviewed as one of the people who had access to the information that was the subject of the investigation. I , along with other members of the national security division, recused myself,” Holder stated. He then added, “I recused myself because I thought it would be inappropriate and have a bad appearance to be a person, who was a fact witness in a case, to actually lead an investigation, given the fact unlike Mr. Cole that I have greater interaction with the press than he does.”

He also indicated he knew of the limited amount of people in the Justice Department, who could have spoken to members of the AP.

It may be that Holder has had a close working relationship with the person, who is believed to have leaked information. However, what he said is similar to what he said yesterday about having frequent interaction with the press. It seems more likely that he understood what the response of the AP and other media organizations would be when they found out that phone records were subpoenaed and he did not want to have to answer for it. He conveniently delegated authority to Cole so Cole could bear the brunt of a decision that would likely be regarded as an unprecedented act against freedom of the press.

Guidelines for subpoenaing the press grant the attorney general the authority. It is expected that the attorney general will be a part of the process. There is no contingency in the guidelines where the attorney general recuses his or herself because they do not have the interest, temerity or will to remain at the forefront of the investigation. So, if they do take a step away from the investigation, it should be officially documented so that everyone can know exactly why it was impossible for the attorney general to exercise his or her authority and take responsibility.

Also, Holder sat before the committee asserting that he did not know all that much about the process that led to the subpoena and the ongoing investigation because he recused himself, but it seemed like he really knew more than he was willing to admit.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) asked straightforward questions to Holder about when he recused himself and this was part of the exchange:

BACHUS: So, it was before the subpoena?

HOLDER: Yeah, I don’t know when the subpoena was issued.

BACHUS: So, it would have been after the subpoenas were issued?

HOLDER: No, I certainly recused myself before the subpoenas were issued.

How can one not know if they recused themselves before the subpoena was issued because they did not know when the subpoenas were issued and then seconds later know for certain they recused themselves before the subpoenas were issued? His answers seems like ones given by someone doing all they can to prevent themselves from divulging information known, which they do not want others to think they know so they can maintain plausible deniability.

Yesterday, at a news conference, he mentioned how he had seen a draft form of a response letter sent by Cole to the AP. Why would he be shown a draft if he was recused? He would not have a need to know the contents of the letter.

Holder told the committee that a “great deal of independence” was given to the US Attorneys involved in these matters. “They did not report back to Washington every investigative step they were taking.”

Through Cole and these US Attorneys, there is a compartmentalization of the investigation so that Holder can assert he does not know what is happening and deflect any and all questions from the press or Congress on this matter.

Multiple representatives asked Holder if Cole could come before the committee to answer questions. Not surprisingly, Holder cautioned against this because he is the lead prosecutor in an “ongoing prosecution.” So, who answers for this? Cole cannot. Holder won’t. Everyone below is not in a position to make official statements publicly. Everyone escapes accountability.

Finally, both Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca.) delivered some good remarks.

“Less than a year ago, the committee’s Republican leadership demanded aggressive investigation of press leaks, accusing the administration itself of orchestrating the leaks,” Nadler said. “Then, members of the committee wanted reporters subpoenaed, put in front of grand juries and potentially jailed for contempt. Now, of course, it is convenient to attack the attorney general for being too aggressive.”

He continued, “This inconsistency on the part of my Republican colleagues should not distract from legitimate  questions worthy of congressional oversight, including whether the Espionage Act has been inappropriately used in looking at leakers.” He also said Congress should pursue the passage of a federal media shield law and also reconsider “broad grants of surveillance and immunity.”

The point was critical, as the seizure of records was an inevitable result of bipartisan leaks hysteria. It was led by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who joined with Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Peter King to demand prosecutions. And, now that the GOP is criticizing the Justice Department over the seizure of records, Holder is pointing out how the GOP wanted a special prosecutor to investigate leaks. This is true, but that does not make the outrage purely partisan. The whole entire news business is offended by the act committed by the Justice Department.

As Lofgren pointedly stated, “It seems to me clear actions of the Department have impaired the First Amendment. Reporters who might have previously believed that a confidential source would speak to them would no longer have that level of confidence because those confidential sources are now going to be chilled.”

She said she did not understand why and how he had recused himself. She wondered why there was not anything in writing. Apparently, no memo or email was written memorializing when he recused himself. Also, citing a New York Times editorial published today, she asked how the Justice Department could possibly worry records in the possession of phone companies would disappear (the DoJ’s excuse for not contacting the AP before subpoenaing records).

“It seems to me the damage done to the free press is substantial and will continue until corrective action is taken,” Lofgren concluded.

What the Justice Department engaged in, whether Holder truly knows the extent of the act or not, is a fishing expedition intended to send a message to government employees or whistleblowers not to talk to the press. It is an assault on the news gathering process itself and, finally, there are media organizations waking up to the reality that the war on whistleblowers waged by the Obama administration is not separate from threats to freedom of the press. They are interconnected and a part of officials’ efforts to defend the national security state’s ability to avoid scrutiny and operate in total secrecy without the public knowing what is being done each and every day.

Every dollar donated to help fund coverage of Bradley Manning has helped transform me into a foremost journalist on one of the biggest cases in military justice history.

Every post of mine shared on Facebook or Twitter has helped amplify critical coverage that is keeping the world informed of how the government is prosecuting Manning as if he is a traitor that aided terrorists.

Every interview you have had others listen to or watch has given Firedoglake and the work I have been doing more notoriety.

And, every comment you have left on my live blogs of proceedings or on reports from Meade, where you thank me for my work or engage in discussion about the case, has been additional encouragement.

With the United States military and government still intending to take Manning’s case to trial on June 3, despite the fact that he pled guilty to some offenses, it will continue to be vital to have your support.

I hope you will keep sharing my reporting with family, friends or those in your social network, and, when possible, make donations so I can remain a fixture in the press pool at Meade and keep up my coverage of the Manning case.

With gratitude,

Kevin Gosztola
Firedoglake.com Journalist

3:00 PM EST Rep. Steve Cohen talked about ability of the president to pardon individuals guilty of non-violent drug offenses. He launched into an excellent rant fiercely condemning the Justice Department for waging a War on Drugs that jails people for using drugs. He cited how 52% of public approves of marijuana use now and then said fighting this war is enriching the Mexican drug cartels.

2:55 PM EST Rep. Darrell Issa naturally puts on a good show. Plays a recording of Tom Perez. Attempts a line of questioning and tries to get away with mischaracterizing Holder’s testimony. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee becomes infuriated and tries to stop the playing of the recording. She doesn’t appear to have that power. Fine theatrics, which is the least you can ask for from these hearings.

2:43 PM EST Holder cautions against calling deputy attorney general, Jim Cole, who signed off on seizure of AP phone records, to testify before House Judiciary Committee because he is overseeing an “ongoing investigation.” So, nobody in Justice Department has to answer for decisions around records seizure right now. That’s what it seems.

2:40 PM ESTRep. Spencer Bachus pressed Holder on whether he memorialized when he recused himself. No memo or email was written. Rep. Zoe Lofgren strongly argued that damage had been done to impair freedom of the press as relationships with confidential sources had been chilled.

2:00 PM ESTRep. Nadler appropriately highlighted how GOP members of the committee called for aggressive prosecution of those responsible for leaks last year. They wanted to subpoena reporters, bring them before grand juries and jail them if they did not answer questions. Now, they are upset about the DoJ seizing AP records. But, he said let’s not ignore the critical issues. Let’s examine how the Espionage Act has been used improperly to go after leakers.

1:55 PM EST Rep. Sensenbrenner gets Holder to confirm that deputy AG, Jim Cole, signed off on subpoena for AP records. He apparently didn’t know for certain before the hearing or had planned not to divulge this information with certainty.

1:42 PM EST Holder is asked questions by Goodlatte on AP records seizure by DoJ. He basically repeats what he said yesterday. Completely useless and waste of time to ask him questions. He passed off responsibility to deputy attorney general by recusing himself making it harder for Congress to conduct any oversight because he supposedly has no idea what has gone on in this process. But, he’s been briefed in some respect and he saw the draft form of a response letter to the AP. He knows more than he wants to talk about because he wants to dodge scrutiny.

1:35 PM EST Goodlatte asks, what is DoJ doing to improve use of databases to fight terrorism in aftermath of Boston bombing? Holder says, “Generally FBI did a good job to the extent that it could. Not sure all the requests made to a foreign country were replied to in an adequate manner.” That country would be Russia.

1:30 PM EST Holder reads statement, which can be read here. Commentary on the contents can be found further down in this post.

1:26 PM EST Without deputy attorney general here to testify, it is likely Holder escapes having to give answers on many of the questions about the DoJ’s seizure of AP records.

1:22 PM EST Conyers gives opening remarks. He said he was “troubled by notion that the government would pursue such broad array of phone media records over such a long period of time” from the AP. He indicated he would be reintroducing the federal media shield legislation, Free Flow of Information Act. He said it would require government to show cause before compelling disclosure.

Conyers said the legislation passed with bipartisan support in the 110th and 111th Congress. But, yesterday, Holder said it didn’t pass because the administration “didn’t get the necessary support on the Hill.”

1:17 PM EST “These requests appear to be very broad and intersect important First Amendment protections…” Members of the Committee want to hear an explanation today, Goodlatte says in his opening statement. He notes the IRS scandal.

Original Post

Attorney General Eric Holder will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this morning. Recent attention to the seizure of the Associated Press’ telephone records and the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS has increased the significance of Holder’s appearance before the committee this morning.

The committee chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), indicates the hearing will focus on the AP phone records’ seizure by the Justice Department and misconduct by the IRS, as well as “the recent bombings in Boston, wasteful spending at the Justice Department, and troubling allegations of the politicization of the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder’s leadership.”

The hearing begins at 1 pm EST and will air on CSPAN3. (Watch it here.)

Holder’s testimony, which he will presumably read in his opening remarks to the committee, is posted. He declares:

Over the past four years, we’ve identified, investigated, and disrupted multiple potential plots involving foreign terrorist organizations as well as homegrown extremists. We’ve secured convictions – and tough sentences – against numerous individuals for terrorism-related offenses. We’ve utilized essential intelligence-gathering and surveillance capabilities in a manner that’s consistent with the rule of law, and with our most treasured values.

Some of the cases he is referring to include cases that were made possible by FBI sting operations, where they essentially have undercover agents go in and target individuals—typically Muslims—who lack the means to carry out any terror plot. The agents assist the the individual in obtaining the means to carry out an attack and, as that person is about to commit the act, he is arrested for trying to commit an act of terrorism.

The use of entrapment schemes to ensnare “terrorists” will likely be ignored entirely by the House Judiciary Committee, but one should understand that this has become an entirely permissible practice in federal law enforcement and, in fact, it means the FBI is creating terrorists while real terrorists like Tamerlan Tsarnaev or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, are actually plotting attacks.

Also, it is clear Holder does not take issue with how the breadth of intelligence-gathering and surveillance capabilities may be too vast and impairing the ability to combat terrorism. The collection of so much data means that it is more difficult in finding the names of people, who may truly be worth looking into and tracking.

Holder’s statement indicates that he is championing the same aspects of the Justice Department’s civil liberties record which he championed in his news conference yesterday. He highlights the administration’s aggressive record on civil rights, one Republicans on the committee will no doubt force him to defend because this probably what they consider “politicizing” the Justice Department. He calls attention to the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, but, in 2011, prosecutions of financial institutions for fraud were decreasing. And, as David Dayen wrote, the Task Force is ”little more than a press release factory, and no indictment, conviction or settlement is too small.” The Task Force “takes credit for cracking down on Ponzi schemes, insider trading, tax evasion, racketeering, violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (!) and a host of other crimes that have precisely nothing to do with the financial crisis.”

There is nothing in Holder’s statement about prosecuting alleged leakers or investigating leaks, which is a bit surprising given the administration’s aggressive and unprecedented record. It also does not highlight the administration’s “support” for a federal media shield law (which it wanted to gut by reducing the scope of privilege a reporter could claim). That may be a result of the fact that the Committee could be very sympathetic to the Justice Department’s decision to seize AP’s phone records.

During a hearing on July 11, 2012, called “National Security Leaks and the Law,” most members called for action to investigate leaks to the fullest extent of the law and bring to justice whomever was responsible for leaks on Obama’s “kill list,” cyber warfare against Iran and a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. Kenneth Wainstein, former Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush, testified, “The easiest way to make these cases is to just go to the reporter. Either get the reporter’s phone records, email records…” None of the members raised any objection to this nor did they question whether there were safeguards in place to ensure abuses didn’t occur.

*

Check back during the hearing for updates. They will appear at the top. Also, follow @kgosztola for updates. And, again, you can watch the hearing here. It begins at 1 pm EST.

Photo released under Public Domain

Screen shot from C-SPAN’s broadcast of AG Holder’s news conference

A symptom of the news that the establishment media organization, the Associated Press, had their phone records targeted by the Justice Department as part of an apparent investigation into a leak has been that reporters have been more aggressive in their questioning of officials at press conferences.

During a news conference Attorney General Eric Holder held at about the same time as White House spokesperson Jay Carney was fielding questions from the press corps, multiple reporters asked him about the seizure of records and whether he understood why this would considered an affront to freedom of the press. Holder coolly and contemptibly maintained there was nothing to be appalled about with this investigation. (To view, go here.)

First, though the Justice Department has chosen not to inform the AP of what story they are investigating, it is believed that they are investigating a May 7, 2012, story on a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation.

At the news conference, Holder indicated that he had “recused” himself in 2012 “to avoid the matter and to avoid the appearance of a potential conflict of interest and to make sure that the investigation was seen as independent.” The deputy attorney general, Jim Cole, was put in charge of signing off on the decision to seize the AP’s records. Holder effectively came himself plausible deniability and this made it possible for the investigation to as broad as those overseeing it deemed necessary.

He said later he was “one of the people who had knowledge of this matter” and because he has “frequent contact with the media” he chose not to be fully informed or involved. That sounds like he was well aware this would infuriate the press when they found out about the scope of the investigation and he did not want to be seen as someone in control of the investigation.

Multiple times he said he did not know all of the facts, but he was “confident that the people who are involved in the investigation, who I’ve known for a great many years and have worked with for a great many years followed all the appropriate Justice Department regulations and did things according to DoJ rules.” Imagine hearing this from any of the attorney generals who served under President George W. Bush—John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales or Michael B. Mukasey. It would not have been adequate reassurance then, and it is not adequately reassuring now.

NBC correspondent Michael Isikoff asked if he understood why people in the news business would find this troubling. Holder’s answer was the following:

I don’t know all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. This was a very serious leak, a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say, if this is not the most serious, it is among the top two or three leaks that we have ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk and trying to determine who was responsible for that I think required very aggressive action…

This contradicts CIA director John Brennan, who was an Obama administration counterterrorism adviser at the time, and spoke with media on the sting operation. He said during a Senate hearing, “There was never a threat to the American public as we had said so publicly, because we had inside control of the plot, and the device was never a threat to the American public.” So, it does not seem reasonable that a leak about an operation that was fully controlled would warrant the descriptor of one of the most serious leaks he has seen since he began working as a prosecutor nearly four decades ago.

But, let’s presume there was some threat. In the original story published by the AP, it included this paragraph:

…The AP learned about the thwarted plot last week but agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP decided to disclose the plot Monday despite requests from the Obama administration to wait for an official announcement Tuesday…

Todd: You keep talking about then Sen .Obama supported a certain piece of legislation that, in fact, as president he killed that piece of legislation in October of 2009 — and made it so that the protections he supported, having judicial review … there was an opportunity to have this bill passed…and he said the White House had problems with it and he killed it.

Carney: First of all, you’re talking about separate pieces of legislation and a legislative history that bears a little more looking into. The president’s position on this is what it was as a senator. But the fact is I cannot then appropriately apply his support for that measure…

Todd: If he supported that piece of legislation, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today because he supported a judicial review when it came to protectin some of these sources –

Carney: And what happened to it in 2007?

Todd: I’m asking you what happen in 2009 when he was president of the United States.

Carney: The legislative history is a little bit more complicated here than what you represent…

Todd: But the Democrats were in charge. You had Chuck Schumer. I mean, this is 2009. Who cares what he said in 2007? We know what he said on the campaign trail in 2008 in front of the Associated Press when it came to this issue. He had a chance to support this and make this happen. Why did he change his position?

Carney: The president’s position on this has not changed.

Todd: Yes, it has.

Carney: No, it hasn’t Chuck.

Todd: The administration said essentially he chained his position because of certain things in national security. Can you explain why?

Carney: Broadly speaking, the president does support the ability of journalists in an unfettered way to pursue investigative journalism. He believes that we have to find a balance between that goal…

Carney went on to say the government has to be concerned about leaks of secrets that could damage national security. Todd appropriately responded that a “third party should have to make that decision” and, as a candidate, President Obama supported “the point of the press is sometimes to be the watchdog of the watchdog and the Judiciary Branch is the appropriate place to make that determination.

And then, remarkably, Todd cogently pointed out, “Look, you guys will claim classified—and it’s not just you as an administration—any administration claims everything is somehow a national security leak.” He suggested a third party should decide whether a leak was or is going to endanger lives and asked if the president supported that kind of protection for media. Carney declined to address this question.

The New York Times reported in October 2009, “The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.”

“The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a ‘media shield’ bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify,” the Times also reported. So, both Carney and Holder are being disingenuous.

To top it off, a reporter asked him what he thought about the Obama administration’s civil liberties record, whether the administration was disappointed and why more had not been done. Holder shiftily answered, “I’m proud of what we’ve done. He cited “the policies we put in place with regard to the war on terror,” the discontinuation of certain “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and the aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws. And, pressed further, he added, “This administration has put a real value on the rule of law and our values as Americans.”

It is unclear what value the Justice Department is promoting when it engages in a wide fishing expedition for records from twenty different phone lines in AP offices that were used by over 100 journalists working for the AP. It is unclear what value is being upheld when two months of time is targeted and it appears that the Justice Department may not only be able to secretly use the material obtained to investigate the leak on the sting operation but also possibly look into the sources for stories by the AP on the US drone program and investigate those sources.

For previous coverage of this story, such as the nature of the Justice Department’s collection of records and a description of a prior case in 2004 where Washington Post and New York Times reporters were targeted by the FBI, go here.