John Cusack wants to know!
Will Eric Holder guarantee NSA reporters' first amendment rights?
The US attorney general vows not to prosecute journalists, but his criminalisation of whistleblowers undermines that assurance
Perhaps someone can explain to John that "journalists" and "whistleblowers" are two entirely different creatures with very different legal standings, and that deliberately conflating leakers, whistle-blowers and jounalists in the fucking headline of your op-ed is the kind of shamelessly dishonest sophistry that I would expect from, say, Glenn Greenwald, but not from...
I should note that I consider both Glenn and Laura friends, as we all sit on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) together.OK, then.
Since this is the twentieth or thirtieth time these olives have been pressed, it all tastes pretty much the same as everything else you've read. Some genuine facts tossed together some half-truths and some outright bullshit: a standard bill of Greenwald fare under Mr. Cusack's signature in which all leakers are whistleblowers, all whistleblowers are Chelsea Manning, all journalists are under imminent threat of arrest by the United States government and every one of them is pretty much automatically doomed to spend eternity like Jesse Pinkman if they set foot in the United States -- tortured by Nazis, kept in a pit and chained to a dog-run forever.
Of course it wouldn't be a real meal if it weren't seasoned heavily with lots of scary Cavutoing
(This is where a
So no more Comedy Central videos for now.
Thanks a lot Obama!)
Can they practice journalism in the United States, without their hard drives being confiscated, without an unconstitutional search-and-seizure taking place at the border?
Are they free to enter the United States without being served a subpoena, or even jailed?
That begs the question: will the attorney general, as chief law enforcement officer of the country, now go on record that he will guarantee the safe return and safe passage of journalists who have exercised their rights under the first amendment?
Or would we accept the creation of a generation of exiled watchdogs, who are trying to hold their government accountable from afar?
Lastly, we once again have Mr. Greenwald's partner -- David Miranda -- being ham-handedly shoved around the chessboard depending on what role our storytellers' need him to play in the Passion of the Greenwald.
When Mr. Greenwald needs the US government to be mafia goons --
But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they feel threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.
-- who go after the innocent family members of Those Who Dare To Speak The Truth, we get this (emphasis added):
“This is obviously a serious, radical escalation of what they are doing. He is my partner. He is not even a journalist.”
And once that story falls apart, Mr. Cusack has no compunction about radically revising Mr. Miranda's back-story, retroactively field-promoting him from hapless partner and unwitting contraband mule of Full Blown Hero Journalist to suit the new-new narrative:
So I am once again left to ask, why it is so fucking hard for these self-proclaimed crusaders for truth to lay off their exaggerating, their sophistry and their lying?"[David Miranda] was detained under the UK Terrorism Act – for an act of journalism.""We care about the individual journalists under attack – Greenwald, Poitras, Appelbaum, Miranda, Julian Assange, James Risen..."