AMY GOODMAN: Well, the news conferences that Eric Holder and the White House held yesterday were interesting. This is White House spokesperson Jay Carney questioned Tuesday about the AP spying scandal and the Obama administration's prosecution of whistleblowers.
REPORTER: This administration in the last four years has prosecuted twice as many leakers as every previous administration combined. How does that reflect balance?
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: I would say that 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.
REPORTER: But the record of the last four years does not suggest balance.
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: That's your opinion, Ari. But I --
REPORTER: No, it's twice as many prosecutions as all previous administrations combined. That's not even close.
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: Well, I -- I understand that there -- you know, that there are ongoing investigations that preceded this administration, but I -- again, I'm not going to -- I can tell you what the president's views are. And the president's views include his defense of the First Amendment, his belief that journalists ought to be able to pursue information in an unfettered way, and that is backed up by his support for a media shield law, both as senator and as president. And it is also true that he believes a balance needs to be struck between those goals and the need to protect classified information.
AMY GOODMAN: And the questions of Jay Carney about the spying scandal on AP just continued.
REPORTER: As a principle, does the president approve of the idea of prosecutors going through the personal phone records and work phone records of journalists and their editors?
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: I -- I appreciate the effort to generalize the question, but, obviously, that goes right to the heart of some of the reporting on this specific case. I can tell you that the president believes that the press, as a rule, needs to be -- to have an unfettered ability to pursue investigative journalism and --
REPORTER: How can it be unfettered if you're worried about having your phone records --
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: Well, again, I can't -- I can't respond to this in the specific. And, you know, I -- I am very understanding of the questions on this issue and -- and appreciate the -- the nature of the questions. And I think they -- they go to important issues, and they go to the fundamental issue of finding the balance between -- when it comes to leaks of classified information of -- our nation's secrets, if you will, between the need to protect those -- that information, because of the national security implications of not protecting them, on the one hand, and the need to allow for an unfettered press and its -- in its pursuit of investigative journalism.
AMY GOODMAN: That is Jay Carney, the White House press spokesperson, who used to be the Washington bureau chief of Time magazine. Your response, Chris Hedges?
CHRIS HEDGES: 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. And I find the passivity on the part of the mainstream press, publications like The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pa????s, 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.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what do you think allowed this to happen, Chris Hedges? You think it's related to, you've suggested in your piece, the war on terror, that it gave kind of sanction, in a way, to this kind of crackdown on journalists?
CHRIS HEDGES: 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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
