NEW YORK (AP) — The reporter rushed up to his editor, thunderstruck by what the FBI’s acting director had just let him know: The former attorney general — maybe even the president — was complicit in the Watergate break-in two months before.
But The New York Times let the hot tip fall through the cracks, the reporter and editor say after decades of silence about the August 1972 conversation. They say it’s unclear whether the Times pursued information that might have let it beat The Washington Post to the blockbuster story of political espionage, which was described in “All the President’s Men” and helped unravel Richard M. Nixon’s presidency.
…

You can read the rest of this story by clicking here.

Did it really ‘fall through the cracks’? That’s the real question. Isn’t it amazing how we get to hear these revelations only after the sources are ‘long-dead’ and the involved reporters and editors are ‘long-gone’? Let’s see…on this one it took almost four decades to find out. Let’s work on not letting this happen, at least not easily, today. Let’s get ‘living sources’ on the record and expose ‘current culprits’ while the stories and cases matter.


What’s Coming Next?

Hopefully by Wednesday morning I will post the first report/case for Project Expose MSM. It will be interesting! I hope I will have your support when the MSM attacks start coming this way…

I am still working on Part 3 of ‘Dissecting the MSM’ series. As you can see I keep getting side-tracked by all sorts of related ideas.


Project Expose MSM: Additional Points

I also want to provide a few additional points in regard to my recent announcement, ‘Project Expose MSM‘.

• This project is ‘experimental.’ Time and our efforts will show its success or effectiveness.

• Remember this is a project run on a personal blog by only ‘me,’ thus, there is only a limited amount of time and resources available. I cannot respond to all e-mails. I cannot review and evaluate all reports. I can only select a few cases based on importance, priority, credibility, and relevance. Then, I have to vet the reports and contact the target reporter/publication for comment/response.

• I tried to emphasize it in the announcement, but I’ll do it again: We have to be fair & balanced. Where credit is due it will be given. When possible good journalists will be recognized and praised.

• Please do not ‘abuse’ the e-mail link provided in project announcement. The e-mail is ONLY for those with specific and supported MSM case/report. It is not for your comments; this is a blog and if you have a comment you can post it under the comment section of each post.

I am sure more points will pop up as we go, and periodically I will come back with additional points and clarification. Now let’s work on this project, get the word out via dissemination, and participate by commenting.

Thank You All

Cartoons and Political Activism

Editorial Cartoons, also known as political cartoons, can be powerful and effective in explaining political issues and current events. Cartoons can evoke compassion and ignite outrage. They can promote ideals and act as catalysts to propel action for change through creative use of visual art.
They help shape public opinion (positively and negatively).

A few days ago, after publishing my latest op-ed piece on President Obama’s Changes on Change, I received an e-mail from Paul Jamiol, a great cartoonist who has done some really good work in depicting our nation’s downslide. He sent me the link to his recent cartoon which is related to the op-ed piece I wrote; great job, indeed! Check it out below:

Here is another good one published a while ago during one of my MSM related campaigns:

I encourage you to check out Paul’s website to see his activism expressed so effectively in cartoons – summing up important issues better than 1000 word pieces.

Now here is your turn: What do you think of political cartoons and their role today? Who is/are your favorite cartoonist(s)? Why? Also, if you can, share (provide the link) with all of us your favorite cartoon (only one cartoon, please!) related to the topics we’ve been discussing (MSM, Need for ‘Real Change,’ Campaign lies and ‘pre-selected’ candidates…). If you don’t have one already, you may want to spend a few minutes browsing the Net – it is fun, uplifting, and also highly stimulating-nothing like a well-executed punchy cartoon to get that critical thinking going….

Project Expose MSM

We all have been tirelessly screaming about issues related to Congressional leaders abdicating their main responsibility of ‘oversight.’ We have been outraged for way too long at seeing ‘no’ accountability whatsoever in many known cases of extreme wrongdoing. I, and many of you, believe that the biggest reason for this was, and still is, the lack of true journalism and media coverage — which acts as the necessary pressure and catalyst for those spineless politicians on the Hill and in the Executive branch. Or, at least it’s supposed to. So, in our book, the MSM has been the main culprit.

Well, here is a chance to turn the tables.

At my new blog, 123 Real Change, I’m happy to present an experimental project, Project Expose MSM, created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers.123 Real Change is inviting all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and even reporters themselves, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored, blacked out or tainted.

Yes, we will be naming names — myself included.

We will even do so below, in one real-case example, intended to help illustrate how the project will work. In the absence of the real investigative journalism and unbiased independent media we need, this is one way to set the record straight…

Not only that, we also know there are many potential whistleblowers out there who are seeking ‘trust-worthy’ reporters and/or publications in order to inform the public. At the same time, many of us in the whistleblower community have learned the hard way that there are many reporters and publications who should be avoided. It is our responsibility to offer those whistleblowers guidance, based on our own knowledge and experience, and maybe save them from some of the traps we ourselves fell into.

Project Expose MSM will select and publicize legitimate, credible, and documented/witnessed stories. It will provide a forum for those with first-hand experience to share their stories with the public. It will raise awareness and allow people to discuss these cases openly. And hopefully it will help to foster improvements to the current, sorry state of our MSM by bringing the wrongs to light.

Here is an important point to remember: Things are never purely black or white. I have emphasized, for example, during my own case and other NSWBC activities, that by pointing criticism generally at the FBI, the good agents get unfairly lumped together with those whom the criticism is actually being leveled at. So to avoid that as much as possible we always try to be both specific and fair. Same is true for this project. There are some good solid reporters who work in the MSM and try to do their best, and in some cases they do, and are ‘allowed’ to do so. Let me give you an example. I have given specific New York Times related examples in several analyses posted in my series on the MSM at 123 Real Change, such as the delay in publishing the NSA Illegal Wiretap story. I was very specific in questioning motives, reasons, or excuses in that particular case.

On the other hand, if I were to give a few examples of who I consider to be solid, trustworthy, professional, and dependable reporters, my fairly short list would certainly include Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, both of whom work for the same New York Times. I hope I make this point clear. This new project will certainly acknowledge and credit positives, whenever possible, along its course. We will also offer the opportunity for anybody whose names are named to reply in response.

I encourage those of you with direct knowledge and experience to join this project by sharing your experiences. Please E-mail me with your report, and carefully follow the format provided below which includes an example of the first, of hopefully many, real-case stories to come:

1) Your name, title, and/or background:

Name: Mike Levine

Title: Retired Supervisory Special Agent/Covert Operations Specialist, DEA

Background: Michael Levine, one of DEA’s most decorated international undercover officers, is a veteran of 25 years of service. As an international undercover operative he witnessed the intentional destruction of undercover investigations targeting major international heroin and cocaine trafficking organizations who also happened to be CIA assets. Among the actions reported was blowing the cover of an undercover operation-Operation Trifecta- that had penetrated the top of a corrupt Mexican government, by Edwin Meese the then US Attorney General. When Michael’s attempts at alerting his superiors via in-house memorandums, and then mainstream media, were “buried,” and Michael himself placed under investigation, he went directly to the public in his books, the New York Times best-seller Deep Cover and the national best-seller The Big White Lie.

See more at Wikipedia…

2) The Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter:

Publication: Newsweek

Reporters: Larry Rohter and Steven Strasser

3) Description of Disclosure/Case/Issue and its Importance:

While stationed in Argentina, the CIA’s actions in sabotaging the undercover sting operation targeting La Mafia Cruzeña, resulted in the July 17, 1980 coup [Bolivia], wherein, as the State Department described it, for the first time in history, a drug trafficking organization took over a sovereign nation. It would be the beginning of what came to be known as “The Corporation,” described by Felix Milian Rodriquez — Medellin Cartel Money launderer, convicted of laundering $1 billion — as the most powerful drug smuggling organization on earth, in a secret session before the Kerry Commission.

At the time I was the DEA Country Attaché in Buenos Aires. I sent a registered letter, return receipt requested, to two Newsweek journalists, Larry Rohter and Steven Strasser-who had just written a rather long article that pretty much whitewashed the case and totally obfuscated US government involvement in aiding the traffickers to avoid prosecution and then in overthrowing the Bolivian government that had, in fact, aided DEA in conducting the sting operation that would have, in the opinion of many, crippled the traffickers. I asked them to contact me, at which time I would have given them the inside scoop of what I believe may have been the greatest act of deception and treason against the citizens we had all sworn to protect, perhaps in history, if one considers the aftermath of said revolution.

In any case, I received notification that the letter had been received by Newsweek. Two weeks later I was notified that I was under investigation by Internal Affairs, and that I was being removed from my post in Argentina. I would never hear from the two journalists.

4) The Method of Blackout or Tainted Outcome:

The story was buried-blacked out. Possibly the identity & provided information/documents were disclosed to government employer.

5) A brief personal message to any potential whistleblowers or our readers:

This information was published in my book THE BIG WHITE LIE in great detail and would be libelous as hell, were it not true. [Note from Sibel: As long as you are factual, credible, and speaking the truth, they can't touch you for divulging their 'unreported deeds.']

We will attempt to contact the reporter, editor or publication in question for comment before publishing any revelations like the above, from whistleblowers and other sources, in order to include any response those named may wish to offer along with the publication of your story. In the case above, Rohter and Strasser’s responses are below:

Response from Rohter and Strasser:

• Despite several requests for response, Steven Strasser did not reply.

• Larry Rohter, who now works at the New York Times replied to our first request for comment — which included the material above — as follows:

  
  

  Dear Ms. Edmonds: From what I see here, you’re not actually offering me a chance to respond to a posting you intend to make. Instead, you’re asking me to comment on an an old and discredited implied accusation made against me by someone I have never met and who, contrary to what he may claim, has never at any time made the slightest attempt to contact me personally or directly. The conspiracy brigade has been feeding off this carrion for years, and I’m really not at all interested in giving it new life on the internet. But if you are in fact willing to explain what it is that makes this paranoid rant relevant to what you intend to write, it might be possible to continue this exchange in writing. Are you saying that any comments of mine would be included in their entirety as part of your post?

  Or is it your intention to use any response selectively? Are you writing for the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition site, or are you writing on a personal site in connection with your individual grievances against the FBI? All of these issues are relevant and will guide me in determining whether or not I want to take this any further. Regards, Larry Rojhter

  We responded to all of Mr. Rohter’s questions, explaining where we intended to post this article, and that we planned to run any response he may have in full. Though we even followed up a second time, we received no further response in return.

IMPORTANT: Please adhere to the following in any submission:

• Don’t get too wordy and too lengthy in your account and description of the case.

• Be as specific as you can.

• Be fair: Make it clear if you are not sure whether the suspect party was the ‘reporter’ or the ‘editor’ or your government employer… We don’t want to accuse ‘unjustly.’

• If you wish to remain anonymous, you’ll need to directly persuade me of the legitimacy of your claim. I will keep all correspondence and your personal information confidential. As a whistleblower myself, and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, I understand the necessity for that in variou cases.

With your help, I look forward to helping to restore the important, once-vital Fourth Estate, so necessary to this country’s very survival.

* 123 Real Change attempts to authenticate the veracity of claims made by our sources whenever possible. However, all claims made are ultimately the responsibility of the sources making them.

Update 1:

Response by Mike Levine: “A copy of the letter and the original return receipt are still in my possession. They were presented to lawyers during the libel reading of “The Big White Lie,” and are available for all who want to see them.“

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…

Based on the op-ed piece I just posted, I would like to present the following two discussion points and have your thoughts.

The Lesser of Two Evils

On the issue of casting votes, one of the points I keep hearing, over and over, is that ‘I knew it even back then, but I had to choose and vote for the lesser of two evils.’

Don’t you consider this, at least to a degree, to be acceptance of ‘no hope for real change’ when it matters the most, during elections? First, to readily accept that we are limited to only choices that have been declared as ‘viable’ by the same MSM and establishment we seek to change.
Second, to helplessly adopt a mindset that says ‘evilness’ is an inevitable prerequisite for ‘viable’ candidates.

When it comes to ‘evilness,’ there is no reliable standard of measurement. Let’s say, for example, that the pre-selected options are: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. How do you measure their degree of ‘evilness?’ For arguments sake, let’s say there is a standard of “evilness” measurement, and when applied to these candidates you get the following data: on a scale of ‘0 to 100’ on the evilness measurement index (‘100’ being absolute evil, ‘0’ being no evil qualities), McCain ranks 98, Clinton 96, and Obama 94. Based on this do people feel justified in voting for the lesser of the ‘given’ three, even though that candidate still ranks extremely high in ‘evilness’? I’m just asking. I really want to get your take on this.

Wasting one’s Vote

The second issue I want to bring up has to do with the notion shared by many: I didn’t want to ‘Waste’ my vote, as in:

I know there are other candidates who are ‘much less evil’ and have much better track records. However, as you see, they don’t have a chance. The MSM and the establishment have either marginalized them or never acknowledged them in the first place. They have no chance, thus, I won’t ‘waste my vote and will choose between the ‘viable’ candidates declared ‘electable.’

We don’t give those ‘better’ candidates a chance even when we believe in them and their competence. What if every one of us who’ve been active and pushing for ‘real changes’ disregarded the ‘established’ etiquette of candidate viability, went out and actually voted for the candidate we trusted ? What if by doing this that ‘nonviable’ candidate ended up with, lets’ say 15% of total votes? Granted he or she has not become the ultimate winner, elected, but what do you think that 15% would mean in the next election? Would it encourage more people to do the same, cast their vote based on what they really believe? Would it motivate better people to rise up and take on leadership? Would it help the current landscape of the MSM – promoting coverage of a ‘people’s candidate’? And finally, what if two election seasons later we get to see a ‘people’s candidate’ with 50% or more of votes cast?

I think this is more than enough to chew on and discuss. I am truly interested to hear all viewpoints, so please bring them in!

During the campaign, amid their state of elation, many disregarded Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama’s past record and took any criticism of these past actions as partisan attacks deserving equally partisan counterattacks. Some continued their reluctant support after candidate Obama became grand finalist and prayed for the best. And a few still continue their rationalizing and defense, with illogical excuses such as ‘He’s been in office for only 20 days, give the man a break!’ and ‘He’s had only 50 days in office, give him a chance!’ and currently, ‘be reasonable – how much can a man do in 120 days?!’ I am going to give this logic, or lack of, a slight spicing of reason, then, turn it around, and present it as: If ‘the man’ can do this much astounding damage, whether to our civil liberties, or to our notion of democracy, or to government integrity, in ‘only’ 120 days, may God help us with the next [(4 X 365) - 120] days.

I know there are those who have been tackling President Obama’s changes on change; they have been challenging his flipping, or rather flopping, on issues central to getting him elected. While some have been covering the changes comprehensively, others have been running right and left like headless chickens in the field – pick one hypocrisy, scream a bit, then move on to the next outrageous flop, the same, and then to the next, basically, looking and treating this entire mosaic one piece at a time.

Despite all the promises Mr. Obama made during his campaign, especially on those issues that were absolutely central to those whose support he garnered, so far the President of Change has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor. Not only that, his administration has made it clear that they intend to continue this trend. Some call it a major betrayal. Can we go so far as to call it a ‘swindling of the voters’?

On the State Secrets Privilege

Yes, I am going to begin with the issue of State Secrets Privilege; because I was the first recipient of this ‘privilege’ during the now gone Administration; because long before it became ‘a popular’ topic among the ‘progressive experts,’ during the time when these same experts avoided writing or speaking about it; when many constitutional attorneys had no idea we even had this “law” – similar to and based on the British ‘Official Secret Act; when many journalists did not dare to question this draconian abuse of Executive Power; I was out there, writing, speaking, making the rounds in Congress, and fighting this ‘privilege’ in the courts. And because in 2004 I stood up in front of the Federal Court building in DC, turned to less than a handful of reporters, and said, ‘This, my case, is setting a precedent, and you are letting this happen by your fear-induced censorship. Now that they have gotten away with this, now that you have let them get away, we’ll be seeing this ‘privilege’ invoked in case after case involving government criminal deeds in need of cover up.’ Unfortunately I was proven right.

So far The Obama administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in three cases in the first 100 days: Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Jewel v. NSA.

In defending the NSA illegal wiretapping, the Obama administration maintained that the State Secrets Privilege, the same draconian executive privilege used and abused voraciously by the previous administration, required the dismissal of the case in courts.

Not only has the new administration continued the practice of invoking SSP to shield government wrongdoing, it has expanded its abuses much further. In the Al Haramain case, Obama’s Justice Department has threatened to have the FBI or federal marshals break into a judge’s office and remove evidence already turned over in the case, according to the plaintiff’s attorney. Even Bush didn’t go this far so brazenly. In a well-written, disgust-provoking piece plaintiff’s attorney Jon Eisenberg, poses the question: “The president’s lawyers continue to block access to information that could expose warrantless wiretapping. Is this change we can believe in?”

This is the same President, the same well-spoken showman, who went on record in 2007, during the campaign shenanigans, and said the following:

“When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution.” –Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, 2007

Yes, this is the same President who had frowned upon and criticized the abuses and misuse of the State Secrets Privilege.

On NSA Warrantless Wiretapping

The new Administration has pledged to defend the Telecommunications Industry by giving them immunity against any lawsuit that may involve their participation in the illegal NSA wiretapping program. In 2007, Obama’s office released the following position of then Senator Obama: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies … Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.” But then Senator Obama made his 180 degree flip, and voted to end the filibuster. After that, along with other colleagues in Congress, he tried to placate the critics of his move by falsely assuring them that the immunity did not extend to the Bush Administration – the Executive Branch who did break the law. Another flip was yet to come, awaiting his presidency, when Obama’s Justice Department defended its predecessor not only by using the State Secrets Privilege, but taking it even further, by astoundingly granting [PDF] the Executive Branch an unlimited immunity for any kind of ‘illegal’ government surveillance.

Let me emphasize, the Obama Administration’s action in this regard was not about ‘being trapped’ in situations created and put in place by the previous administration. These were willful acts fully reviewed, decided upon, and then implemented by the new president and his Justice Department.

Accountability on Torture

President Obama’s action and inaction on Torture can be summarized very clearly as follows: First give an absolute pass, under the guise of ‘looking forward not backward,’ to the ultimate culprits who had ordered it. Next, absolve all the implementers, practitioners and related agencies, under the excuse of ‘complying with orders without questioning,’ and then start giving the ‘drafters’ of the memos an out by transferring the decision for action to the states.

After granting the ‘untouchable’ status to all involved in this shameful chapter in our nation’s dangerous downward slide, he now refuses to release the photos, the incriminating evidence, and is doing so by using the exact same justification used repeatedly by his predecessors: ‘Their release would endanger the troops,’ as in ‘the revelation on NSA would endanger our national security’ and ‘stronger whistleblower laws would endanger our intelligence agencies’ and so on and so forth.

Not only that, he goes even further to shove his secrecy promotion down other nations’ courts throat. In the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen and a legal resident in Britain who was held and tortured in Guantanamo from 2004 to 2009, and filed lawsuits in the British courts to have the evidence of his torture released, Mr. Obama’s position has been to threaten the British Government in order to conceal all facts and related evidence. This case involves the brutal torture and so very ‘extraordinary’ rendition practices of the previous administration, the same practices that ‘in words’ were strongly condemned by the President during his candidacy.

Today he and his administration unapologetically maintain the same Bush Administration position on extraordinary rendition, torture, and related secrecy to cover up. Here is Ben Wizner’s, the attorney who argued the case for the ACLU, response “We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course.” Yes indeed, President Obama has chosen to protect and support the course involving torture, rendition and the abuse of secrecy to cover them all up.

The Revival of Bush Era Military Commission

After all the talk and pretty speeches given during his presidential campaign on the ‘failure’ of Bush era military tribunals of Guantanamo inmates, Mr. Obama has decided to revive the same style military commission, albeit with a little cosmetic tweak here and there to re-brand it as his own. Many former supporters of Mr. Obama who’ve been vocal and active on Human Rights fronts have expressed their ‘total shock’ by this move and its pretense of being different and improved, “As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig – but it will always be a pig,” said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve.

Thankfully the ‘on the record’ statements of Candidate Obama in 2008 on this issue, contradicting his action today, are accessible to all:

“It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Suspect terrorists (emphasis on ‘suspect’) cannot have just trials consistent/in line with our ‘courts and Uniform Code of Military Justice’ via military commissions. It’s almost an oxymoron! And if you add to that the other Obama-approved ingredients such as secrecy, rendition, and evidence obtained under torture, what have we got? Anything resembling our courts and Uniform Code of Military Justice system?

On War and Bodies Piling Up

Here is the first paragraph in a New York Times report on May 15, 2009:

“The number of civilians killed by the American air strikes in Farah Province last week may never be fully known. But villagers, including two girls recovering from burn wounds, described devastation that officials and human rights workers are calling the worst episode of civilian casualties in eight years of war in Afghanistan.”

The report also includes the disagreement over the exact number of ‘Civilian Casualties’ in Afghanistan by our military airstrike:

“Government officials have accepted handwritten lists compiled by the villagers of 147 dead civilians. An independent Afghan human rights group said it had accounts from interviews of 117 dead. American officials say that even 100 is an exaggeration but have yet to issue their own count.”

Does it really matter – the difference between 147 and 117 or just 100 when it comes to children, grandmothers…innocent lives lost in a war with no well-defined objectives or plans? If for some it indeed does matter, then here is a more specific and detailed report:

“A copy of the government’s list of the names, ages and father’s names of each of the 140 dead was obtained by Reuters earlier this week. It shows that 93 of those killed were children — the youngest eight days old — and only 22 were adult males.”

Maybe releasing the photographs of the nameless unrepresented victims of these airstrikes should be as important as those of torture. Because, from what I see, they and their loss of lives have been reduced to some petty number to fight about.

When I was around twelve years old, in Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war, my father, a surgeon in charge of a hospital specializing in burns and reconstructive surgery, decided to take me to the hospital to teach me an unforgettable lesson on war. I think one of the factors that prompted him was my new obsession with classic war movies; you know, ones like ‘the Great Escape.’ Anyhow, he took my hand and we entered a ‘transition ICU Unit.’ In that room, on a standard size hospital bunk bed, laid an infant of eight or nine months of age, or what was remaining of her. Over eighty percent of her body was burned; to a degree that the skin had melted and absorbed the melting clothing on top -impossible to remove without removing the skin with it. Instead of a nose two holes were drilled in the middle of her face with tubes inserted allowing breathing, the upper eyelids were melted and glued to the lower ones, and…I am not going to go further – I believe you get the picture.

This baby was the victim of an air strike, a bombing that killed her entire family and leveled her modest home to the ground. My father pointed at this heartbreaking baby and said, “Sibel, this is war. This is the real face of war. This is the result of war. Do you think anything can justify this? I want to replace the glamorous exciting phony images of those war movies in your head. I want you to remember this for the rest of your life and stand against this kind of destruction…”

And I do. This is why I am offended by those petty numbers when it comes to civilian deaths. This is the reason I believe some may need pictures of these atrocities as much as those of torture to replace those ‘Shock & Awe’ footages fed to them by our MSM.

All this death and destruction is carried out while the administration’s Afghan policy is still murky and confused, and it’s strategy ambiguous. Sure, our so-called ‘New’ Afghan Strategy includes more troops and asks for a much larger budget allocation; nothing new there. It is another war with no time table. It is the continuation of the same abstract ‘War on Terror’ without any definition of what would constitute an ‘accomplished mission.’ One minute there is pondering on possible ‘reconciliation’ with the Taliban, and the next minute seeking to topple it. In fact, to confuse the matter even further, we now hear this distinction between ‘Good Taliban, Bad Taliban, and the Plain Ugly Taliban.’ As stated by Karzai on Meet the Press on May 10, 2009, not all Taliban are equal!!

I can go on listing cases of Mr. Obama’s change on change. Whether it is his reversal on protection for whistleblowers, despite his campaign promise to the contrary, or his expansion of the Un-American title of ‘Czardom,’ where we now have more czars than ever: Border Czar, Energy Czar, Cyber Security Czar…Car Czar…maybe even a Bicycle Czar!. Or…But for now I’ll stick with the major promises that were ‘Central’ to him getting elected, all of which he has flipped on in less than 150 days in office, a track record indeed.

What I want the readers to do is to read the extremely important cases above, step back in time to those un-ending campaign trail days, and answer the following questions:

How would Senator McCain have acted on these same issues if he had been elected? How would Senator Hilary Clinton? Do you believe there would have been any major differences? Weren’t their records almost identical to Senator Obama’s on these issues? If you are like me, and answer ‘same,’ ‘same,’ ‘no,’ and ‘yes,’ then, why do you think we ended up with these exact same candidates, those deemed ‘viable’ and sold to us as such?

With too much at stake, too many unfinished agendas for the course of our nation, and too many skeletons in the closet in need of hiding for self-preservation, the ‘permanent establishment’ made certain that they took no risk by giving the public, via their MSM tentacles, a coin that no matter how many times flipped would come up the same – Heads, Heads.

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…Brad Blog

Maybe…

Seymour Hersh was recently interviewed by Gulf News, during which he talked about Cheney’s Secret Assassination Unit under JSOC. The topic of the interview is important and warrants its own post, especially now that President Obama is considering Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as a replacement for Gen. McKiernan, the top US and NATO Commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal happens to be the man who commanded Cheney’s JSOC. As I said, this is an important topic on its own, but here is what I got from the interview:


How closely is the new US administration looking at your revelations?

“Publicly they don’t say anything at all. It’s obvious I have credibility because I’ve written things that have turned out right. My colleagues at the press corps often don’t follow up, not because they don’t want to but because they don’t know who to call. If I’m writing something on the Joint Special Operations Command, which is an ostensibly classified unit, how do they find it out? The government will tell them everything I write is wrong or that they can’t comment. It’s easy for those stories to be dismissed.”

I take this as a loaded comment on the MSM. It is almost like the ‘Clintonian’ definition of ‘is.’ The ‘can’t’ doesn’t seem to be based on a ‘pledge to secrecy no matter how wrong or criminal the deed.’ Because these sources obviously ‘can’ comment when it is Seymour Hersh, but they ‘can’t’ comment when it comes to other MSM reporters. It seems to me they are using ‘can’t’ as in I can’t trust you to comment.

Another point I got from this is that the large and prestigious news agencies’ reporters who are specialized in Pentagon and DOD areas ‘don’t know who to call.’ Can you hear me whistling here, whistling not as in ‘whistleblowing,’ but as in ‘wow’ whistling Maybe Hersh is trying to convey a coded message to these veteran expert but pitiful reporters: ‘Guys, you won’t get the real story, the truth, if you keep calling the press offices of these agencies, and, print what they are faxing you.’ Maybe he means ‘dear colleagues, you can’t get the truth when you only deal with government designated sources.’ Just Maybe.

Part 2- Pressure Points

‘Pressure’ is one of those buzzwords you hear in almost all discussions involving the mainstream media and related topics: Government Pressure, Corporate Pressure, Special Interest & Lobby Pressure, Management Pressure, Colleagues Pressure…It’s always pressure – whether its pressure placed directly on the reporter, editor, or on the board and or ownership…So how does it work? How much pressure? What methods are used? Of course, the answer largely depends on ‘who’ the pressure comes from (government or corporate or …), ‘who’ is the target of the pressure (is it the source, the reporter, etc.). For this post I am going to focus on what’s referred to as ‘government pressure,’ provide you with my take by providing context and case examples, and then let you bring in yours.

Just to make sure you understand – I don’t claim to be an expert, nor do I pretend to have all the right answers. I am drawing upon eight years of direct first hand experience in dealing with the media on my case, four years of interaction with the MSM on and with our organization and our National Security Whistleblowers, and years of association and friendship with many journalists, authors, attorneys and experts active in the area of national security and civil liberties. I am still seeking answers and looking for solutions…


Flexing Muscles

Many cases of the government resorting to intimidation and harassment to prevent a story from coming out go unreported. I suppose this proves the effectiveness of this method. The flexing muscles method ranges from subtle threats to overt harassment. Many of these cases go unreported simply because the ‘pressure’ takes care of the ‘problem,’ and the ‘pressured’ party, either due to the shame of giving in or the fear of ‘further pressure,’ goes mum into their grave.

Here is a case where government agents’ muscle flexing through overt harassment did not go unreported because the target happened to be an investigative journalist with a proven track record and integrity; a rare breed, indeed:

Bill Conroy is an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal and a contributing journalist for Narco News and an author. The Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press was one of very few outlets to report the story of the government’s harassment and intimidation, targeting Conroy for his reporting of a leaked memo regarding the centralized database for tracking terrorists.

“A leaked memo from the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security sparked its officials to interview a writer last month in an attempt to discover his source for an article on the online news service Narco News.”

You can read the story and the leaked memo in question here. The memo divulged that DHS supervisory agents in the field were directed to alter terrorism related files without preserving their original versions. This is equivalent to shredding during the pre-computer era. Rather important, right? The government then sent some agents who apparently were instructed to teach Conroy a lesson or two:

“Two agents came to his home and spoke to his wife while Conroy was at work, and appeared at his office the next day. Conroy, an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal, contributes to Narco News. The agents spoke to Conroy as well as his boss at the Journal in an apparent attempt to intimidate him into revealing his source, said Ron Tonkin, Conroy’s attorney.”

So they send a couple of tough looking agents with a mission to intimidate and harass. Send the agents to the target reporter’s office and have them treat him as a ‘criminal suspect,’ and make sure his colleagues and boss are around to watch… Send them to his house, make sure the neighbors see the agents knock on his door and flash their badges, and instruct them to intimidate the spouse and or the children. You might be surprised to learn how many ‘targeted reporters’ actually do get ‘pressured’ out of reporting in cases like this; how many divulge sources; and how many pledge not to ever enter the ‘no no zone’ again. Bill Conroy didn’t, but Conroy is among a tiny group…

“Bill Conroy did not divulge the source of the leak in his article and refused to when agents visited his home and workplace on May 23 and 24, respectively, asking for his sources in the department.”

And guess what? In the end, they couldn’t do anything to him. Shouldn’t this be a lesson to reporters who follow a different path?

“Although the agents reportedly mentioned speaking to the U.S. attorney, implying they might obtain a subpoena for the information, no such order has been issued. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of the western district of Texas declined comment. Calls to the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Professional Responsibility were not returned.”

Intimidation can also come in the form of a legal bluff. This approach seems to be gaining popularity since the September 11 attacks. The government can, and has been, using ‘National Security’ to declare many embarrassing or incriminating stories ‘classified.’ This allows them to flash their ‘we’ll take you to court’ card, and wait to see whether the target publication or reporter decides to ‘hold or fold or walk away.’

Let’s look at New York Times reporter James Risen’s case:

“A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to a reporter of The New York Times, apparently to try to force him to reveal his confidential sources for a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the reporter’s lawyers said Thursday.”

The same article emphasized that this trend is not isolated:

“Mr. Risen, who is based in Washington and specializes in intelligence issues, is the latest of several reporters to face subpoenas in leak investigations overseen by the Justice Department.”

How many reporters can afford the hefty legal fees to fight a case like this in court, when the government has at its disposal unlimited resources in dollars, legal maneuvering expertise, and manpower? Not many, I can assure you. Lucky lucky Risen! As for publications, also not many who’ll be willing. And unfortunately, not many reporters can easily secure pro-bono representation by a civil liberties organization with enough muscle to challenge the government. Thus many at an early stage, when ‘pressured’ by threats of legal action, give in and abandon a story yet to be written. Then add to this the recently revealed NSA targeting of journalists and you get the kind of pressure that may even eliminate the need for legal threats. Just the knowledge of being monitored is enough ‘pressure’ to dissuade many editors and reporters from pursuing‘radioactive’ cases in the first place.

The same government intimidation and threat tactics are also applied to ‘sources.’ Here is a brief account of my own experience:

In 2002, a few days before the airing of the CBS-60 Minutes segment on my case, my attorneys received a letter by fax from the Justice Department attorneys. The letter was to let us know that I would be pursued legally and severely if I went through with this interview. They strongly claimed that any information I was to disclose was being considered ‘classified.’ Of course, my attorneys knew better, and we didn’t bulge. And low and behold no ‘action’ ever came from the government following the airing of the segment. It was bluff, threat and intimidation; just that.

Not only did the government try to stop my appearance on the program, they took similar action with another FBI whistleblower, John Roberts, who also was interviewed for that same segment.


Source Pressures

Everyone knows ‘high-level government sources’ to reporters on politics and intelligence related matters is what the rolodex is in business. The net-worth, the value, of these reporters is frequently judged based on their ‘access.’ Sure; it makes sense. First, a reporter tries to make his/her way up the chain and establish the ‘relationship and trust’ necessary for this access. Next, and equally important, is to ‘maintain’ this relationship. This too makes sense, and is part of the job. Now, the question is, at what price? What are the things a reporter is willing to do, how far is he/she willing to go to ‘maintain’ his or her access?

Successful experienced journalists with a solid sense of ethics and integrity are good at ‘balancing’ when it comes to ‘source maintenance.’ This appears to be one of those disappearing qualities within the mainstream media. When the publication, the editors, lean towards, sorry, bend over, the government’s angle on stories, the reporters follow by compromising ‘a lot’ to keep and maintain their news/information ‘feeders’ within the government agencies.

I am going to provide you with another first-hand witnessed and documented incident. The only reason I am not naming ‘the well-known reporter & publication’ is to protect the source who obtained and passed on the incriminating documented evidence – the communication that occurred in writing between him and this particular ‘reporter.’

The individual who dealt with the congressional and press side of my case during the early stages of my whistleblowing journey wrote an e-mail to a well-known and well-placed journalist, saying, ‘Man, I can’t believe you guys did not cover this!!! Ashcroft comes out and invokes the State Secrets Privilege, first time ever asserted by the Bush administration, and you don’t write about it?! What the hell, man?! What’s the deal? I sent you the press release and attached a bunch of documents on that e-mail…’

Here is the response from that well-known journalist, and stupidly enough in writing: ‘I was going to call you. A few months ago I finally got this big DOJ guy, I mean BIG! Our deal-exclusive. You can’t do better than that in Washington. Anyhow, he doesn’t want us to touch Edmonds’ story. Period. I am not going to piss off my source for some God Damn translator whistleblower…’

The reporter’s refusal to cover the story was irrational – the State Secrets Privilege invocation was first released through an official DOJ press release and other major publications ran with the news. So what does this tell you? To maintain high-level government sources well-known reporters cut deals like this: You be my man, and I and what I cover will be yours. Unfortunately, through several reporter friends I was given many more examples and was told ‘that’s the name of the game when it comes to covering politics and government in this city.’

Soft Pressures

I touched on this type of pressure in the previous piece and in my last op-ed, and the recent revelations on Harman-New York Times provides both the context and case example. The fact that the NSA, DOJ and whatever other agency can softly ask the editors and management of the New York Times to sit on a major story involving criminal government action against it’s own people for over a year, and the request be complied with. The fact that a Congresswoman has enough ‘ins and pull’ to dial the decision-makers’ number at the New York Times and ask them ‘as a favor’ to not publish a story. The fact that a LA Times editor dutifully reports to NSA its source’s disclosure on wiretapping and the AT&T, takes his marching orders, comes back, and kills the story.

You see what I mean? There are many, many ‘soft pressure’ cases out there.

As with the various theories on the factors contributing to MSM degradation, the pressure styles can also be applied in combination. While the Justice Department attorneys are ‘flexing muscles’ by threatening the information source with legal action, their Attorney General or Deputy or whomever can be making his ‘soft’ call to dissuade the editor from moving forward with the story, and their Special Agent in Charge of whatever department may be summoning his ‘pet reporter’ to ban him from working on this same target story.