Obama administration out to destroy legitimate movements that challenge centers of power says Chris Hedges

Hedges reveals what’s behind Obama’s assault on whistleblowers and press freedom

No 749 Posted by fw, May 17, 2013

“So what they do is they pass [legislation] … in the name of the war on terror, but then they can use it. Anybody can become a terrorist…. So when we allow this kind of thing to go forward, we essentially shut down any ability not only to ferret out what’s happening internally within the mechanisms of power, but to protest or carry out dissent.” —Chris Hedges

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and author of The Death of Truth talks to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now about the significance of the Obama administration’s continuing attempts to criminalize any form of dissent. “What we’ve undergone… [is] a kind of corporate coup d’état.”

What Obama is doing in the US is not unlike what Harper is trying to do in Canada.

Click on the following linked title to watch the interview and access the complete transcript. Or scroll down to watch an embedded copy of the 19-minute interview and read an abridged version of the transcript with added subheadings.

Chris Hedges Monitoring of AP Phones a “Terrifying” Step in State Assault on Press Freedom, Chris Hedges interview, Democracy Now, May 15, 2013

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

[Introduction]

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges joins us to discuss what could mark the most significant government intrusion on freedom of the press in decades. The Justice Department has acknowledged seizing the work, home and cellphone records used by almost 100 reporters and editors at the Associated Press…. The action likely came as part of a probe into the leaks behind an AP story on the U.S. intelligence operation that stopped a Yemen-based al-Qaeda bombing plot on a U.S.-bound airplane. Hedges…calls the monitoring “one more assault in a long series of assault against freedom of information and freedom of the press.” Highlighting the Obama administration’s targeting of government whistleblowers, Hedges adds: “Talk to any investigative journalist who must investigate the government, and they will tell you that there is a deep freeze. People are terrified of speaking, because they’re terrified of going to jail.”

[Chris Hedges is the sole source for all following passages]

Monitoring of Associated Press staff cellphone records is part of Obama admin pattern to silence whistleblowers

Well, it’s part of a pattern. That’s what’s so frightening. And it’s a pattern that we’ve seen, with the use of the Espionage Act, to essentially silence whistleblowers within the government—Kiriakou, Drake and others, although Kiriakou went to jail on—pled out on another charge—the FISA Amendment Act, which allows for warrantless wiretapping, the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for the stripping of American citizens of due process and indefinite detention. And it is one more assault in a long series of assault against freedom of information and freedom of the press. And I would also, of course, throw in the persecution of Julian Assange at WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning as part of that process.

Obama using Espionage Act to terrify investigative journalists

Well, it’s been used six times by the Obama administration. It was written in 1917 and was—is our Foreign Secrets Act. It is never meant—it was not designed to shut down whistleblowers, first used against Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers. So, three times from 1917 until Obama takes office in 2009, six times. And if you talk to investigative journalists in this country, who must investigate the inner workings of government, no one will talk, even on background. People are terrified. And this is, of course—the seizure of two months of records, of AP records, is not really about going after AP; it’s about going after that person or those people who leaked this story and shutting them down. And this canard that it endangered American life is—you know, there’s no evidence for this.

Anyone who digs out cases of torture and war crimes is going to be ruthlessly silenced

Well, I find, you know, all of these measures to essentially shut down the freedom of information, including the persecution of Assange and Manning, as symptomatic of a reconfiguration of our society into a totalitarian security and surveillance state, one where anyone who challenges the official narrative, who digs out cases of torture, war crimes—which is, of course, what Manning and Assange presented to the American public—is going to be ruthlessly silenced.

The mainstream press has no conception of what this is all about – Obama’s attempt to criminalize any form of dissent

And I find the passivity on the part of the mainstream press, publications like The New York Times, The Guardian, El País, Der Spiegel, all of which, of course, used this information, and turning their backs on Manning and Assange, to be very shortsighted for precisely this reason. If they think it’s just about Manning and Assange, then they have no conception of what it is that’s happening.

And, you know, everyone knows, within the administration, within the National Security Council, the effects of climate change, the instability that that will cause, the economic deterioration, which is irreversible, and they want the mechanisms by which they can criminalize any form of dissent. And that’s finally what this is about.

Obama using war on terror as excuse to ferret out and destroy legitimate movements that challenge centers of power

Well, you know, it becomes the same paradigm in the war against communism. It’s an excuse to ferret out and destroy legitimate movements that challenge centers of power. And that’s, of course, how the war on terror has worked in exactly the same way. But we are seeing environmental activists, Occupy activists, people who function, like Manning, as a whistleblower being caught up in this war on terror and silenced through these rules.

So what they do is they pass, you know, for instance, Section 1021 of the NDAA. They pass it in the name of the war on terror, but then they can use it. Anybody can become a terrorist. I mean, in the trial in federal court, which we brought against—in the Southern District, we used, in the Stratfor-leaked emails that were put out by WikiLeaks, where they were trying to link a group that was close to Occupy, US Day of Rage, and al-Qaeda. That’s precisely what happened. So when we allow this kind of thing to go forward, we essentially shut down any ability not only to ferret out what’s happening internally within the mechanisms of power, but to protest or carry out dissent.

“We are now in the last moments of an effort to, in essence, effectively extinguish press freedom”

I find what’s happening terrifying, truly frightening. And when you look closely at all of the documents that were purportedly given to WikiLeaks by Bradley Manning and published through Assange, none of them were top-secret. I mean, as a former investigative reporter for The New York Times, it was my job to go and find out often top-secret information. And that’s why I can’t understand the inability of the traditional press to grasp that we are now in the last moments of an effort to, in essence, effectively extinguish press freedom.

Obama has succeeded in dividing members of the press against themselves

And if you—I mean, AP is an — like The New York Times – an amazingly cautious organization, but read the comments. I mean, they get it, internally. But, unfortunately, you know, they have divided us against ourselves, and—and this is—you know, what we’ve undergone, as John Ralston says and as I’ve said many times, a kind of corporate coup d’état.

Obama is carrying out policies Bush put in place, but with a difference – he’s smarter

What we are seeing is a system put into place where it’s all propaganda. And anybody who challenges—I mean, look, this constant reference to a shield law is absurd, because they just violated the shield law by not going to court and informing AP of a subpoena but doing it secretly. So, I mean, you’ve got to hand it to the Obama administration. They’re far more clever than their predecessors in the Bush administration, but they’re carrying out exactly the same policy of snuffing out our most basic civil liberties and our most important press freedoms.

What we’re witnessing is a corporate coup d’état

And that’s because they know what’s coming, and they are going to legally put in a place by which any challenge to the centers of corporate power become ineffectual or impossible.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Barriers to free expression under Harper regime exposed in report by Canadian journalists

“…continuing concern for a number of analysts is the culture of secrecy in the federal government…”

No 744 Posted by fw, May 11, 2013

On May 3, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJPE) released its annual Review of Free Expression in Canada. The 48-page CJPE report is filled with useful information, not only about surveillance and whistleblowing, but also about the state of our Access to Information and Privacy laws – along with hints about how to get around bureaucratic roadblocks and to use those laws as effectively as possible. You can access and download the complete CJPE report by clicking on Review of Free Expression in Canada, 2012-2013.

Included in the Review is one of CJPE’s staples, the Report Card, which provides an overview of the free expression landscape in Canada over the past year. Always controversial, the grades are met with varying reactions.

Here is a reformatted reprint of CJFE’s Report Card 2012-13. To access and download the original PDF version, click on the linked title.

Free speech rights should be robust, comprehensive and equally enjoyed in all parts of Canada

Parents faced with a child’s report card featuring both A’s and F’s might understandably think the teacher had mixed up the grades with those of another student. But free expression in Canada truly does span the spectrum from head of the class to flunking out.

As always, we look at one of the most important components of free expression: access to information, where it is obvious that Canada is falling behind, not only when measured against the standards we set for ourselves, but also in international studies that compare us to others.

The vital link between free expression and access to information was underlined this year by the information commissioner’s significant decision to investigate seven federal departments because of
alleged muzzling of government scientists.

But it is clear in other areas—for instance, Quebec’s anti-SLAPP law or the federal government’s creation of the Parliamentary Budget Office—that we understand what should be done. We need only look within our borders for solid examples of best practices in every area of free expression. And yet, just as one province moves forward, another one takes a step back, and we are left with a patchwork of laws and policies across the country.

CJFE believes Canadians deserve the same robust rights, no matter which part of the country they live in. It only makes sense to strive for greater consistency and implement our best legislation and policies in every province and territory. After all, it was not just one province or territory that spoke out against the Internet surveillance bill, C-30—it was Canadians across the country working together. We can and should learn from each other.

*****

GRADES

D — ACCESS TO INFORMATION & THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

It’s somewhat of a balancing act this year. There are good reasons to go even lower than last year’s failing F: Canada’s increasingly archaic Access law was ranked 55th out of 93 countries with such laws; the muzzling of government scientists was so bad that Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault had to launch an investigation; the statistics on delays and redactions/exemptions got worse; and the Harper government’s culture of secrecy did not improve. But there were also a few tiny signs of hope: in 2014, the government plans to make summaries of completed requests searchable across all departments; 13 of 18 federal institutions that were performing poorly are now doing better; a pilot project will test the value of offering online requests and payment; and Legault is pushing for the reform of the 30-year-old Act. We could have given another failing grade, but rather than repeating this dismal year, we hope the federal government will heed the many voices calling for change. For more on access to information, see page 8.

C– THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Another middle-of-the-pack grade here. On the one hand, the federal government withdrew its controversial Internet surveillance bill under pressure from digital activists. A huge victory for privacy advocates in Canada, this decision could be seen as a positive step toward a government that’s willing to listen to its citizens’ concerns. For an analysis of Bill C-30, see page 32.

On the other hand, there was nothing to applaud in the government’s response to Edgar Schmidt, a Justice Department lawyer who blew the whistle on his employer, claiming that it was acting unlawfully by setting the bar ridiculously low when assessing whether a piece of legislation is inconsistent with the Charter. The government suspended Schmidt without pay and attempted to have his case dismissed before even filing a defence. Whether or not Schmidt is correct in his analysis, surely the federal government’s duty is to listen to its counsel and respond if warranted. For more on whistleblowers, see page 28

F — THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS (DFO)

This department deserves special mention for its zeal in muzzling scientists, controlling its message and keeping critical information away from the public. The DFO would not allow Kristi Miller, a DFO researcher and peer-reviewed author of a study about salmon diseases, to speak to the media about her work for two full years. The DFO is also one of the departments under investigation by the information commissioner for muzzling its scientists, and international researchers might pull out of collaborative research with DFO scientists because of severe limits on publication. For more on the muzzling of scientists, see page 14.

A — THE PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE

At the opposite end of the classroom spectrum was the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). For the past five years, former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page and his staff—in particular Mostafa Askari, Chris Matier and Sahir Khan—made an important contribution to the discourse in Canada about access to information, transparency and accountability of govern­ment. At a time when many who work for the government have been muzzled or forced to speak only the official line, Page made it his duty to tackle difficult and controversial issues with integrity and conviction, and to communicate to Canadi­ans much-needed information about these issues. Unfortunately, despite the excel­lent work, Page’s appointment has not been renewed. Instead, the government has appointed an interim parliamentary budget officer with far less experience. Nor is there any evidence the government is willing to give the PBO the status of an inde­pendent officer of Parliament, like the auditor general, which would enable it to truly hold the government to account.

C — THE SUPREME COURT

A middling grade for a middling year for a court that appears intent on finding and sticking to the middle of the road. No new ground was broken for free expression, and in at least one major hate speech case, Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. William Whatcott, the Court had a real opportunity to bring important change to how hate speech cases are adjudi­cated, but instead rendered a disappointingly timid decision that changed very little. A powerful institution with the opportunity to implement strong protections for free expression rights in this country, the Supreme Court is failing to live up to its potential. For more on hate speech, see page 21.

A – ANTI-SLAPP AND THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC

SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) are used to silence dissent by consuming the energy and financial resources of critics. For instance, developers have used them to silence people objecting to a proposed project. That is what’s clear about the subject. The rest is more complex. Four years ago, the Quebec National Assembly, citing the importance of free expression, passed a law prohibiting the use of such legal manoeuvres. For that, Quebec politicians deserve a belated grade of A. Unfortunately, a study of the first two years of the new law shows that Quebec courts have been reluctant to dismiss SLAPP cases at an early stage.

F – ANTI-SLAPP AND THE REST OF CANADA

Meanwhile, the rest of the country lags far behind. There is no anti-SLAPP legisla­tion in any other province or territory. Four provinces have had discussions about the problem and one, Ontario, even struck an advisory panel, which recommended the creation of legislation, but three years on there has been no progress. Legislatures in the rest of Canada receive a grade of F for their lack of action. For more about anti-SLAPP legislation, see page 28

*****

KUDOS & MUZZLES

Kudos

• Democracy Watch and the Environmental Law Clinic of the University of Victoria for their report Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy?, which asked federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault to look into the government’s muzzling of scientists. Legault has agreed to investigate.
• Elizabeth Denham, British Columbia’s information and privacy commissioner, for her work in pushing the provincial government to document key decisions and keep a record of its actions, and furthermore, to make this “duty to document” a requirement through legislation. She has spoken out against the widespread practice of “oral government” and the use of private email and phones for public business.

Muzzles

• The legislature of Prince Edward Island, for turning down a request for any information about its own $6-million budget, which covers spending by the offices of the speaker, government members and the opposition (the legislature is not covered by P.E.I.’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act). Perhaps the politicians believe that their spending is a private matter.
• Jean Charest and Quebec’s Bill 78, for a draconian approach to handling student protests over tuition increases. Stripping citizens of their rights to free assembly and free expression is no way to respond to public protests and outrage.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

In court battle, activists’ small act of property trespass loses to toxic trespass of Big Gas

Waiving $375 fines, activists accept 15 days in jail for civil disobedience. University biology professor and activist, Sandra Steingraber, among those sentenced

No 726 Posted by fw, April 20, 2013

Don’t have time for both the 10-minute video and rather long accompanying text? Go for the video, which, towards the end, when Sanda says goodbye to her family, will break your heart.

Video: Sandra goes to jail

The following 10:18-minute video begins with a very short clip of Dr. Steingraber addressing a protest rally back on September 15, 2012. The remaining 10 minutes focuses on the events of April 17, 2013 as Sandra speaks words of encouragement to her supporters before bidding a tearful farewell to her family before being handcuffed and escorted to jail.

Sandra Steingraber, Others Get 15 Days in Jail for Civil Disobedience Against Gas Co. by Jon Queally, Common Dreams, April 18, 2013

Three upstate New York community members-cum-activists, charged with criminal trespass for blockading a gas company installation last month, were sentenced to 15 days in jail on Wednesday by a local judge in an upstate courthouse.

Among those sentenced was university biology professor and author Sandra Steingraber, who delivered an impassioned statement ahead of the sentencing explaining why she was compelled to civil disobedience and why she would refuse to pay the fine levied by the judge.

“My small, non-violent act of trespass,” said Steingraber to the crowd, “is set against a larger, more violent one: the trespass of hazardous chemicals into water and air and thereby into our bodies. This is a form of toxic trespass.”

Speaking with journalist Bill Moyers just one day prior to the sentencing, Steingraber explained why she and other community members felt it necessary to protest “plans to store millions of barrels of highly-pressurized liquid propane and butane — gases produced in the controversial process of fracking — in [local] salt caverns.”

Also sentenced on Wednesday were massage therapist Melissa Chapman and local farm owner Michael Dineen.

The courtroom at sentencing, according to reports, was brimming over with more than 150 supporters and onlookers.

The gas compression site they were blockading, owned by Missouri-based Inergy corporation, is part of an underground ‘gas storage operation’ near the region’s Seneca Lake, which provides drinking water for more than 100,000 area residents.

Opponents of the project, including those sentenced, say the project is a danger to families, farms and the health of the local ecosystem. In addition, they contend, Inergy has continually undermined safety regulations and blocked calls attempts to compel disclosure of vital information about the nature of the project.

“I do not take this step lightly,” said Michael Dineen, reflecting on his own actions. “My wife and I have a small farm in Seneca County. We grow organic grains and maintain a large garden we use to feed our and our daughter’s families. Our garden is irrigated with lake water. I believe the Inergy gas storage complex will, at best, damage the community, and has the potential to do catastrophic damage. Important information has been kept from the public with the DEC’s cooperation. I do this to attempt to protect the community when all other means have failed. I blocked the entrance to the Inergy gas storage facility because I believe that the institutions who, by law and purpose, are required to protect the people and the environment from harm can no longer be relied on to do so.”

Local Channel 34 News explained the case’s background:

On March 18, Steingraber and 10 fellow residents of the Seneca Lake region, in a peaceful act of civil disobedience, blockaded a gas compressor station site run by Missouri-based Inergy, LLP, on Seneca Lake. They did so to demonstrate their opposition to Inergy’s planned heavy industrialization of the Finger Lakes region, renowned for its natural beauty, vineyards, and tourism- and agriculture-based economy.

Inergy’s gas storage and transportation project in the Town of Reading, right on Seneca Lake, threatens the water supply for 100,000 people.

All 11 protesters, along with a legal liaison, were arrested and charged with trespassing.

On April 17, Judge Raymond Berry of the Town of Reading imposed a fine of $375 for trespassing for Chipman, Dineen, and Steingraber, the three people appearing that evening. All three refused to pay (their statements are attached), and the judge ordered that each spend 15 days in jail.

Steingraber’s full sentencing statement follows:

Good afternoon.  My name is Sandra Steingraber. I’m a biologist and a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College.  I’m 53 years old and the mother of an 11-year-old son and a 14-year-old daughter.  I’m married to an art teacher, and we all live in the village of Trumansburg, which is about 15 miles to the northeast, as the crow flies.

On March 18, 2013, together with 11 other local residents, I stood in the driveway of this site, which is owned by the Kansas City-based energy company called Inergy and located on the west bank of Seneca Lake. In so doing, I broke the law and am charged with trespassing. Before my arrest, I and the others with whom I linked arms, temporarily blocked a truck carrying a drill head from going where it wanted to go.  This is my first experience with civil disobedience. Here is an explanation of my actions.

First, and most importantly, this act of civil disobedience is a last resort for me.  Prior to this, I and other community members have taken every legal avenue to raise the serious health, economic, and environmental concerns associated with the Inergy plant.  However, time and again, we’ve been deterred from participating in the decision-making process. For example, Inergy has declared the geological history of the salt caverns to be proprietary business information, so that much of the basic science on the structural integrity of the salt caverns is hidden from view. How can we offer informed public comments and raise scientific objection when we are denied this fundamental information?

Inergy has asked for fast-track FERC approval and that we fear that authorities are poised to rubber stamp these applications before the public has had a chance to review all the relevant information and the full impacts of these combined projects have been considered.

This act of civil disobedience was also undertaken to bring attention to the fact that this company has been out of compliance with the Clean Water Act every quarter for the last 12 quarters—which is as far back as the data go–exceeding its effluent discharge limit.  For this behavior, the company has been fined, not once, but twice, to the tune of over $30,000.

Effluent discharge means that the company dumps chemicals directly into Seneca Lake, which is a source of drinking water for 100,000 people.

It is my belief that paying trivial fines does not excuse the crime of salting the lake.  And it’s because I have such a high respect for the rule of law that I will be choosing not to pay a fine for my act of trespassing and instead will show responsibility by accepting a jail sentence.

Second, I seek by my actions to shine a spotlight on the dangerous practice of converting abandoned salt caverns into storage containers for highly pressurized hydrocarbon gases, namely propane and butane. Legal or not, this practice is tantamount to burying giant cigarette lighters in the earth.

This form of liquefied petroleum gas storage has a troubled safety record.  Leaks, explosions, and collapses have occurred in at least ten other places.  Additionally, the fleets of diesel trucks and the planned 60 ft. high flare stack—even absent calamitous accidents—will add hazardous air pollutants to our communities. Thus, my small, non-violent act of trespass is set against a larger, more violent one: the trespass of hazardous chemicals into water and air and thereby into our bodies.  This is a form of toxic trespass.

Lastly, I desire to bring attention to the rapid build-out of fracking infrastructure in New York.  Even as we are engaged in a statewide conversation about whether our governor should maintain or lift the current moratorium on shale gas extraction via horizontal fracking in New York, technology that further entrenches our dependency on shale gas—pipelines, storage, compressor stations, processing plants—is being rapidly deployed.  These infrastructure investments make fracking in New York State more likely and aid and abet fracking in other states, where it is associated with sickness and misery among people causes devastation to land, water, and air quality.

In a time of climate emergency, the transformation of the Finger Lakes into a massive transportation and storage hub for climate-destroying fossil fuel gases that have been fracked out shale in other states is the absolute wrong form of development.

I am a biologist, not a lawyer.  But when I looked up my crime on Wikipedia, here is what it said:

Trespass to land involves the wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in [real] property. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England articulated the common law principle… translating from Latin as “for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.” In modern times, courts have limited the right of absolute dominion over the subsurface. For instance, drilling a directional well that bottoms out beneath another’s property to access oil and gas reserves is trespass, but a subsurface invasion by hydraulic fracturing is not [emphasis added].

In other words, trespassing laws are unjust. They make a criminals of people who stand on a lakeshore purchased by an out-of-state fossil fuel company only interested in the hollowed out salt chambers that lie 1500 feet beneath the surface, while, at the same time, allowing drilling and fracking operations to tunnel freely under homes, farms, and aquifers, shatter our bedrock, and pump the shards full of toxic chemicals.

I broke the law by standing in a privately owned driveway.  Fossil fuel companies are not breaking the law by trespassing into the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases and so creating planetary crisis.  There are the disparities that I seek to communicate with my actions and, out of respect for the fidelity of law, with my willingness to accept a jail sentence rather than pay a fine.

As a working mother of two school-aged children, this is a decision I have reached after much discernment.

SEE ALSO

• <Video> Sandra Steingraber’s War on Toxic Trespassers (46 min), Moyers & Company, April 19, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.