Showing posts with label Reporters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reporters. Show all posts

Monday, March 17, 2014

US, UK labeled ‘Enemies of the Internet’ by Reporters Without Borders for first time


Reuters / Kieran Doherty
Reuters / Kieran Doherty


The United Kingdom and the US have been branded ‘Enemies of the Internet’ for the first time by Reporters Without Borders on their annual list of countries which disrupt freedom of information through surveillance and censorship.


Both the US and the UK were included in the list for first time as a result of revelations from the Whistleblower Edward Snowden into the activities of the American and British spy agencies.


In fact Edward Snowden branded the UK, where the government has largely ignored calls to reign in the nation’s spooks and the public remain apathetic, as “worse than the US”.


Snowden outlines various “widespread surveillance practices” operated by GCHQ as part of its plan called “Mastering the internet”.


“The Internet was a collective resource that the NSA and GCHQ turned into a weapon in the service of special interests, in the process flouting freedom of information, freedom of expression and the right to privacy,” say the report’s authors.


The UK, says the press watchdog, paid scant heed to any legal considerations when harvesting huge amounts of data.


“Supported by the NSA and with the prospect of sharing data, the British agency brushed aside all legal obstacles and embarked on mass surveillance of nearly a quarter of the world’s communications,” the report says.


The authors go on to note that the UK is in a unique global position to scoop up internet traffic because many of the landing points of global cables down which internet information travels land on British soil.


“The best known is at Bude in Cornwall, which hosts seven cables including Apollo North which links the UK and the United States, and more particularly TAT-14, which connects the United States and Europe – which US diplomatic cables have called an “essential resource”.”


This means that GCHQ can eavesdrop on exchanges between citizens in Europe and people in the US.


The report also blasts Britain for “confusing journalism and terrorism”, and criticizes the UK government for putting excessive pressure on the Guardian newspaper “to suppress the scandal of the GCHQ wiretaps” and of wrongfully arresting David Miranda.


Miranda was the partner of former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald and was stopped and held for the maximum permitted nine hours under anti-terrorism laws by UK authorities on his way through London Heathrow airport carrying what were deemed sensitive encrypted documents from US film maker Laura Poitras in Berlin.


While Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger was hauled up in front of a committee of MPs and peers and grilled about his papers role in publishing the Snowden revelations. There were also calls from some members of the right wing establishment for him to be investigated by the police and prosecuted although this was quickly dropped when it became clear there was no case against the newspaper.


Reporters Without Borders make it quite clear that in most cases it is not actually governments that are to blame, but much smaller government units, such as the Operations and Analysis Centre in Belarus and GCHQ in the UK.


The fact that countries such as the UK, US and India – another new addition on the list – are now in the same boat as authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabiya and Belarus is cause for considerable concern. Russia’s FSB is also on the list as an agency that has gone beyond its core duty of national security. While China is also labeled as “an expert in information control” even since it created “the Electronic Great Wall”.


“The mass surveillance methods employed in these three countries, many of them exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, are all the more intolerable because they will be used and indeed are already being used by authoritarians countries such as Iran, China, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain,” states the report.


“How will so-called democratic countries be able to press for the protection of journalists if they adopt the very practices they are criticizing authoritarian regimes for?” the authors add.


The study also notes that the activities of the Enemies of the Internet would not be possible without the tools developed by private sector companies and that here the contradictory behavior of the western democracies should be noted.


One of the major forums or trade fairs specializing in this technology was recently hosted by France despite the French government’s vocal criticism of the activities of the NSA.


Reporters without Borders urged the EU, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, to guarantee unrestricted internet access and digital freedoms in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


The report concludes by recommending that international bodies such as the United Nations be pressed to protect internet data and regulate surveillance. It also says that journalists and other information providers should learn how to protect their data and communications.


Source: RT





End the Lie – Independent News



US, UK labeled ‘Enemies of the Internet’ by Reporters Without Borders for first time

Friday, January 31, 2014

China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure



AFP
February 1, 2014, 12:01 am TWN





BEIJING–China on Friday hit back at Washington’s condemnation of its treatment of foreign journalists, as tensions rise over a New York Times reporter who left Beijing after not receiving a visa.

The case of reporter Austin Ramzy, who departed Beijing for Taipei on Thursday, has sparked protests from the White House and elsewhere that China is seeking to retaliate against news organizations such as the Times and financial news agency Bloomberg that have published investigations into the family wealth and connections of its top leaders.


“China does not accept the unjustifiable accusations by the U.S. side, and demands the U.S. side to respect facts and take cautious words and acts,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement reported Friday by the official Xinhua News Agency.


Hong added Washington must behave in a way that was more “conducive to media exchanges and mutual trust between the two countries”.


Hong’s sharp retort came after the White House said it was “deeply concerned that foreign journalists in China continue to face restrictions” following Ramzy’s departure for Taipei, where he will report while continuing to seek a visa for mainland China.


Ramzy, who had been based in China for more than six years, left Time magazine in mid-2013 to work for the New York Times.


‘Forced out’


But Chinese officials had not yet granted him a new visa before his previous one expired, effectively obliging him to leave Beijing.


“China is forcing out Austin Ramzy today after 6.5 years,” Times China correspondent Ed Wong wrote Thursday on Twitter.


Ramzy confirmed his arrival in Taipei via Twitter Thursday night. In an earlier message, he wrote: “Sad to be leaving Beijing. Hope I can return soon.”


Ramzy’s departure comes a month after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden raised the issue of China’s treatment of foreign journalists privately with Chinese leaders during a visit to Beijing.


Beijing has blocked the websites of both the Times and Bloomberg after they published investigations in 2012 into the family wealth of former premier Wen Jiabao and President Xi Jinping, respectively.


Authorities also reportedly conducted unannounced “inspections” of Bloomberg’s offices in Beijing and Shanghai last month and demanded an apology from its editor-in-chief amid a controversy over an unpublished article on the government ties of a Chinese billionaire.





China Post Online – China News



China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure

China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure



AFP
February 1, 2014, 12:01 am TWN





BEIJING–China on Friday hit back at Washington’s condemnation of its treatment of foreign journalists, as tensions rise over a New York Times reporter who left Beijing after not receiving a visa.

The case of reporter Austin Ramzy, who departed Beijing for Taipei on Thursday, has sparked protests from the White House and elsewhere that China is seeking to retaliate against news organizations such as the Times and financial news agency Bloomberg that have published investigations into the family wealth and connections of its top leaders.


“China does not accept the unjustifiable accusations by the U.S. side, and demands the U.S. side to respect facts and take cautious words and acts,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement reported Friday by the official Xinhua News Agency.


Hong added Washington must behave in a way that was more “conducive to media exchanges and mutual trust between the two countries”.


Hong’s sharp retort came after the White House said it was “deeply concerned that foreign journalists in China continue to face restrictions” following Ramzy’s departure for Taipei, where he will report while continuing to seek a visa for mainland China.


Ramzy, who had been based in China for more than six years, left Time magazine in mid-2013 to work for the New York Times.


‘Forced out’


But Chinese officials had not yet granted him a new visa before his previous one expired, effectively obliging him to leave Beijing.


“China is forcing out Austin Ramzy today after 6.5 years,” Times China correspondent Ed Wong wrote Thursday on Twitter.


Ramzy confirmed his arrival in Taipei via Twitter Thursday night. In an earlier message, he wrote: “Sad to be leaving Beijing. Hope I can return soon.”


Ramzy’s departure comes a month after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden raised the issue of China’s treatment of foreign journalists privately with Chinese leaders during a visit to Beijing.


Beijing has blocked the websites of both the Times and Bloomberg after they published investigations in 2012 into the family wealth of former premier Wen Jiabao and President Xi Jinping, respectively.


Authorities also reportedly conducted unannounced “inspections” of Bloomberg’s offices in Beijing and Shanghai last month and demanded an apology from its editor-in-chief amid a controversy over an unpublished article on the government ties of a Chinese billionaire.





China Post Online – China News



China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure

China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure



AFP
February 1, 2014, 12:01 am TWN





BEIJING–China on Friday hit back at Washington’s condemnation of its treatment of foreign journalists, as tensions rise over a New York Times reporter who left Beijing after not receiving a visa.

The case of reporter Austin Ramzy, who departed Beijing for Taipei on Thursday, has sparked protests from the White House and elsewhere that China is seeking to retaliate against news organizations such as the Times and financial news agency Bloomberg that have published investigations into the family wealth and connections of its top leaders.


“China does not accept the unjustifiable accusations by the U.S. side, and demands the U.S. side to respect facts and take cautious words and acts,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement reported Friday by the official Xinhua News Agency.


Hong added Washington must behave in a way that was more “conducive to media exchanges and mutual trust between the two countries”.


Hong’s sharp retort came after the White House said it was “deeply concerned that foreign journalists in China continue to face restrictions” following Ramzy’s departure for Taipei, where he will report while continuing to seek a visa for mainland China.


Ramzy, who had been based in China for more than six years, left Time magazine in mid-2013 to work for the New York Times.


‘Forced out’


But Chinese officials had not yet granted him a new visa before his previous one expired, effectively obliging him to leave Beijing.


“China is forcing out Austin Ramzy today after 6.5 years,” Times China correspondent Ed Wong wrote Thursday on Twitter.


Ramzy confirmed his arrival in Taipei via Twitter Thursday night. In an earlier message, he wrote: “Sad to be leaving Beijing. Hope I can return soon.”


Ramzy’s departure comes a month after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden raised the issue of China’s treatment of foreign journalists privately with Chinese leaders during a visit to Beijing.


Beijing has blocked the websites of both the Times and Bloomberg after they published investigations in 2012 into the family wealth of former premier Wen Jiabao and President Xi Jinping, respectively.


Authorities also reportedly conducted unannounced “inspections” of Bloomberg’s offices in Beijing and Shanghai last month and demanded an apology from its editor-in-chief amid a controversy over an unpublished article on the government ties of a Chinese billionaire.





China Post Online – China News



China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure

China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure



AFP
February 1, 2014, 12:01 am TWN





BEIJING–China on Friday hit back at Washington’s condemnation of its treatment of foreign journalists, as tensions rise over a New York Times reporter who left Beijing after not receiving a visa.

The case of reporter Austin Ramzy, who departed Beijing for Taipei on Thursday, has sparked protests from the White House and elsewhere that China is seeking to retaliate against news organizations such as the Times and financial news agency Bloomberg that have published investigations into the family wealth and connections of its top leaders.


“China does not accept the unjustifiable accusations by the U.S. side, and demands the U.S. side to respect facts and take cautious words and acts,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement reported Friday by the official Xinhua News Agency.


Hong added Washington must behave in a way that was more “conducive to media exchanges and mutual trust between the two countries”.


Hong’s sharp retort came after the White House said it was “deeply concerned that foreign journalists in China continue to face restrictions” following Ramzy’s departure for Taipei, where he will report while continuing to seek a visa for mainland China.


Ramzy, who had been based in China for more than six years, left Time magazine in mid-2013 to work for the New York Times.


‘Forced out’


But Chinese officials had not yet granted him a new visa before his previous one expired, effectively obliging him to leave Beijing.


“China is forcing out Austin Ramzy today after 6.5 years,” Times China correspondent Ed Wong wrote Thursday on Twitter.


Ramzy confirmed his arrival in Taipei via Twitter Thursday night. In an earlier message, he wrote: “Sad to be leaving Beijing. Hope I can return soon.”


Ramzy’s departure comes a month after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden raised the issue of China’s treatment of foreign journalists privately with Chinese leaders during a visit to Beijing.


Beijing has blocked the websites of both the Times and Bloomberg after they published investigations in 2012 into the family wealth of former premier Wen Jiabao and President Xi Jinping, respectively.


Authorities also reportedly conducted unannounced “inspections” of Bloomberg’s offices in Beijing and Shanghai last month and demanded an apology from its editor-in-chief amid a controversy over an unpublished article on the government ties of a Chinese billionaire.





China Post Online – China News



China hits back at US in row over NYT reporter"s departure

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Police Tell Reporters That They Cannot Film Wastewater Plant From Public Street


Infowars.com
January 15, 2014


In a gross attack on the First Amendment, a police officer told Infowars reporters and crew that they could not film a wastewater plant from across a public street.


The officer said that he had the “authority” to stop them from filming even though he admitted that it was not illegal to film the facility.


“There’s no law, but like I said, based on the fact that it is a critical site, your activity is being deemed suspicious so we have the authority,” he said.


This is a perfect example of how police officers routinely use the “color of law” to deprive journalists of their First Amendment right to publicly film and cover news stories.


They use their “authority” to intimate reporters even though that authority runs contrary to basic human rights and the law.


The right to film in public has been affirmed time and time again by the U.S. Supreme Court and several federal Appeals Courts, which have all ruled that everyone – not just journalists – has an individual right to film (video, audio, photography, etc.) in public because there is “no expectation of privacy” in a public place.


In 2011, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unambiguously that the First Amendment recognizes this right.


“It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information,” Circuit Judge Kermit Lipez wrote in the court’s opinion.


Additionally, in 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with a lower court ruling that a Illinois law which prevented citizens from filming police was unconstitutional.


This article was posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 1:24 pm










Infowars



Police Tell Reporters That They Cannot Film Wastewater Plant From Public Street

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Obama pollster: reporters should stop covering polls in 2014


posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:26 PM


Well, considering that most “polls” are extremely small numbers of people in comparison to the population, whereby the statistics are skewed to favor a certain agenda or rhetoric, and then used by all major media outlets as “gospel”…

This actually surprises me. For once.


I can’t even take this seriously though. Someone got their panties in a bunch because they found out all the pathological lies are starting to catch up to them and need a quick fix. Shocking. If anyone believes the nonsense that these polls produce, I have a bridge to sell them.


Sometimes I wish you could buy common sense like junk food.




AboveTopSecret.com New Topics In Breaking Political News



Obama pollster: reporters should stop covering polls in 2014

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice’s recent adventures in surveilling reporters’ phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.


DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters’ privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $ 5 and starts a blog.” Quoth Feinstein: “This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters.”


Big mistake, that “real reporters” line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting “to strip independent journalists’ rights.” Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted “fascist.”


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure “leaves out citizen bloggers.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, “Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media.”


Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren’t licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.


“To me, there’s not really a need to define the world of journalism,” David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to


“protect journalists” but to protect the dissemination of information.


But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — (SET ITAL) report on (END ITAL) and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.


Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.


Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.


What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein’s belief in “real reporters.” It’s a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, “the longest-imprisoned journalist” in America.


Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn’t commit a crime. But he wasn’t a journalist.


He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.


Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as “salaried” staffers of news organizations or “independent contractors.” I don’t understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.


Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.


Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they’re more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.


SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don’t pay their people.


Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish? 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice’s recent adventures in surveilling reporters’ phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.


DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters’ privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $ 5 and starts a blog.” Quoth Feinstein: “This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters.”


Big mistake, that “real reporters” line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting “to strip independent journalists’ rights.” Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted “fascist.”


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure “leaves out citizen bloggers.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, “Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media.”


Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren’t licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.


“To me, there’s not really a need to define the world of journalism,” David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to


“protect journalists” but to protect the dissemination of information.


But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — (SET ITAL) report on (END ITAL) and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.


Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.


Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.


What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein’s belief in “real reporters.” It’s a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, “the longest-imprisoned journalist” in America.


Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn’t commit a crime. But he wasn’t a journalist.


He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.


Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as “salaried” staffers of news organizations or “independent contractors.” I don’t understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.


Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.


Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they’re more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.


SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don’t pay their people.


Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish? 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Reporters to reveal ‘US assassination program’


Press TV
September 29, 2013


Two American journalists are working together to expose the role of the US National Security Agency in what they described as a “US assassination program.”


Contributor to The Nation magazine Jeremy Scahill and Rio-based journalist Glenn Greenwald are working on the project.


“The connections between war and surveillance are clear. I don’t want to give too much away but Glenn and I are working on a project right now that has at its center how the National Security Agency plays a significant, central role in the US assassination program,” Scahill said on Saturday.


“There are so many stories that are yet to be published that we hope will produce ‘actionable intelligence,’ or information that ordinary citizens across the world can use to try to fight for change, to try to confront those in power,” he added.


Greenwald was the first journalist who broke the revelations about US spying programs based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.


“The really important thing to realize is the desire for surveillance is not a uniquely American attribute,” Greenwald was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.


“America has just devoted way more money and way more resources than anyone else to spying on the world,” he added.


Greenwald also praised discussions by some South American governments to find ways to circumvent American control over the Internet.


“But I think it’s also very important to keep in mind that whenever governments, be it the US government or the Brazilian government or anybody else, starts talking about regulating the Internet, even when they tell you it’s designed to protect your privacy from the American government . There is also the danger that the Brazilian government or any other government or international institution will want to simply replace the United States as the entity that is monitoring your communications,” he said.


Court documents have shown that the NSA violated privacy rules for years with its surveillance practices.


The documents released over the past few months reveal a troubling picture of a super spy agency that has sought and won far-reaching surveillance powers to run complex domestic data collection without anyone having full technical understanding of the process.


The privacy violations were first revealed by Snowden in June. He leaked confidential information that showed the NSA collects data of phone records and Internet communication of American citizens.


This article was posted: Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 5:47 am


Tags: ,










Infowars



Reporters to reveal ‘US assassination program’

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

VIDEO: Yasiel Puig"s media problems







Fox Sports Live debates Yasiel Puig’s attitude towards media













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.









To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Yasiel Puig"s media problems

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Michael Hastings Death Brings About Conspiracy Theories, Reporter"s Deadly Car Crash, CIA


car crash car insurance car crashes car crashes caught on camera 2013 car crash compilation The apparent death of Michael Hastings, the young investigative j…
Video Rating: 0 / 5



They seem to be a tad more infrequent these days, always seems reliable for a good stifle though.
Video Rating: 0 / 5



Michael Hastings Death Brings About Conspiracy Theories, Reporter"s Deadly Car Crash, CIA

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

A reporter"s eyewitness account of Taliban attack








Afghan national security arrive near the entrance gate of the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan Tuesday, June 25, 2013. Suicide attackers blew up a car bomb and battled security forces outside the presidential palace Tuesday after infiltrating one of the most secure areas of the capital. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which came as reporters were gathering for a news event on Afghan youth at which President Hamid Karzai was expected to talk about ongoing efforts to open peace talks with the militant group. (AP photo/Rahmat Gul)





Afghan national security arrive near the entrance gate of the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan Tuesday, June 25, 2013. Suicide attackers blew up a car bomb and battled security forces outside the presidential palace Tuesday after infiltrating one of the most secure areas of the capital. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which came as reporters were gathering for a news event on Afghan youth at which President Hamid Karzai was expected to talk about ongoing efforts to open peace talks with the militant group. (AP photo/Rahmat Gul)





Afghan security forces investigate near the entrance gate of the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan Tuesday, June 25, 2013. Suicide attackers blew up a car bomb and battled security forces outside the presidential palace Tuesday after infiltrating one of the most secure areas of the capital. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which came as reporters were gathering for a news event on Afghan youth at which President Hamid Karzai was expected to talk about ongoing efforts to open peace talks with the militant group. (AP photo/Rahmat Gul)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — One moment I was standing in a quiet, secure and heavily guarded area and the next it had turned into a battlefield.


It was 6:30 a.m., and I waiting with about 20 other journalists for an escort into the palace for a speech by President Hamid Karzai. It was a routine assignment for Kabul journalists, and the presidential compound is a scenic and peaceful oasis lined with pine trees in my chaotic hometown.


Suddenly I saw the four armed men jump out of their vehicle. They kneeled down and started shooting. Two of them fired at presidential palace security guards stationed at a checkpoint. The two others aimed their weapons at the Ariana Hotel, where the CIA is known to have an office.


I didn’t know what to do. Bullets were flying all over. Gunfire was coming from different directions. No one really knew who were the attackers and who were the security forces because both sides were wearing similar uniforms.


I thought at first that this must be an insider attack or an argument between security guards. I just couldn’t believe that Taliban fighters could have made it this far into the presidential compound, through two checkpoints. Soon I realized they must be Taliban.


___


EDITOR’S NOTE: Rahim Faiez, a correspondent with The Associated Press in Afghanistan since January 2002, was waiting in a security area outside the heavily fortified Afghan presidential compound in Kabul for an escort to the palace to cover a speech by President Hamid Karzai when he got caught up Tuesday in a Taliban attack. This is his account.


___


I hit the ground and kept my head down, asking myself, what I should do? I looked around to try to find a place to use as a shelter and call my office — report the news as fast as possible.


Mostly, though, my thoughts focused on my small children — my nearly 6-year-old son, Mohammad Akmal, and my two daughters, Hadia, who is 4, and Muqadasa, just 15 months.


Some other reporters took shelter behind an armored SUV used by an American television network. A few others lay in a ditch.


I saw a white, small, religious shrine nearby, and crawled about 10 to 15 meters (yards), then ran as fast as I could toward the wall of the shrine. I saw blood on my clothes but was sure I had not been hit. Later I noticed scratches on my arms and knees from pulling my body across the ground.


I finally reached the wall and thought it was safe enough to take my mobile phone and call the office.


Breathless and scared, I shouted over the phone to a colleague, “David, attackers are inside and shooting is going on.” He was shocked.


Grenades and rockets were exploding in the background and automatic weapons were firing. My colleague asked, “Are you safe, Rahim? Are you OK? I replied I was fine, even if I wasn’t entirely.


Then I managed to take a deep breath and started reporting, the battle still going on in the background.


Most of the reporters moved with me behind the shrine.


Looking out, we saw a small boy, around 6 years old, wearing a school uniform and running close to us. He was so brave, not crying, but of course very worried.


We grabbed him and pulled him behind the wall. He didn’t know how to call his parents but one of the reporters had a number for the director of his nearby school. He called and told the director that one of his students was with us and safe.


I wanted to move out from behind the wall and take some photos with my cell phone. But bullets kept coming and never gave me the chance. We all wanted to leave from our precarious position, but security guards from the other gate, about 50 meters (yards) away from us, kept shouting that we must stay there. Otherwise we could be shot from the CIA building because guards there wouldn’t know who we were.


We sheltered behind that wall for about an hour until the shooting finally eased. During that time, my father called me twice. I lied to him, telling him I was farther from the battle than I really was.


More guards moved into the area, first securing it and finally motioning to us one by one to leave. By then, we later learned, eight attackers and three guards lay dead.


But at the moment I wasn’t sure whether other attackers were hiding nearby. I felt safe only when I finally got away from the area. I called my father and told him I was on my way back to the office and not to worry.


Associated Press




Top Headlines



A reporter"s eyewitness account of Taliban attack

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Holder: Leaks probes target government officials, not reporters




  • NEW: Judiciary Committee asks Holder to appear to explain Fox News statements

  • GOP senator suggests Holder “distracted by controversies of his own making”

  • GOP levels allegations of perjury after Holder’s statements in May regarding probes

  • Justice will never prosecute reporter for doing job while he is at helm, he says



(CNN) — The Justice Department will never prosecute journalists for doing their jobs, and recent probes into national security leaks targeted government officials, not reporters, Attorney General Eric Holder said in remarks to a Senate committee Thursday.


Holder, amid a cloud of controversy for investigations in recent years involving The Associated Press and Fox News, said he has launched a review of existing Justice Department guidelines on investigations involving the press, and he is meeting with journalists to discuss those guidelines.


“The department goal in investigating leak cases is to identify and prosecute government officials who jeopardize government secrets,” Holder told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a wide-ranging budget hearing that included questions about the federal prison system, drone strikes and the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.


He added that as long as he is at the Justice helm, he will never prosecute a reporter for doing her or his job. AfterHolder’s testimony, the House Judiciary Committee asked him in writing to appear this month to explain testimony he gave May 15 concerning the Fox News case, in which a reporter was labeled a criminal co-conspirator during a leak investigation.


Switching directions during his allotted time to speak Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, raised questions about this week’s report that the National Security Agency and FBI were monitoring Americans’ phone records. He asked specifically whether Holder could assure him that no member of Congress had been monitored, as it might give the executive branch leverage over the legislative branch.


Holder responded that it wasn’t an appropriate venue to answer the question, to which Kirk said the appropriate answer was, “No, we stayed in our lane, and I assure you we did not spy on members of Congress.”


“There has been no intention to spy on members of Congress and members of the Supreme Court,” Holder said.


Sen. Barbara Mikulski, chairwoman of the committee, interrupted the back-and-forth to say that the matter deserved a briefing before the entire Senate, and involving the NSA and Holder.





Issa: Hard to have confidence in Holder





Eric Holder’s media mess





The ‘mess’ that is Eric Holder





Holder should resign, says law professor


Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the ranking GOP member of the committee, opened his remarks by saying the Justice Department was “mired in a controversy of late” that raised questions about the Justice Department’s “adherence to the rule of law” and Holder’s ability to lead. He further said Americans deserved an attorney general “not distracted by controversies of his own making.”


Holder emphasized he was “fully engaged” in efforts to resolve these problems and evaluates his own performance on a daily basis.


“I have not done a perfect job. I think I’ve done a good job, but I think I could do better,” he said, adding that his meetings with journalists are aimed at formulating new policies and regulations “and hopefully get that behind us.”


Responding to Shelby’s query about whether there would be a tipping point at which Holder might need to step down, Holder — who has suggested he might not serve for President Barack Obama’s entire second term — said he had more goals to accomplish before he sat down with Obama to discuss a transition.


“The tipping point might be fatigue,” Holder told Shelby. “You get to a point where you just get tired.”


Sen. Dianne Feinstein did not continue the line of questioning regarding the leaks but defended Holder and lamented that the hearing was used to berate him.


“I believe in your integrity,” she said. “I believe you’re a good attorney general. I believe you’ve had undue problems that are hard to anticipate. I believe you’re responding as best you possibly could.”


Holder is under fire for two instances, in particular. The first involves his Justice Department obtaining two months of phone records from The Associated Press as part of an investigation into the news agency’s May 2012 coverage of a foiled airline bomb plot in Yemen. The second case involves Justice obtaining the phone records, e-mails and security badge information of Fox News’ James Rosen, who reported on classified intelligence about North Korea in 2009.


No reporters were singled out as potential criminals in the AP case, but in the Fox case, an FBI agent said Rosen might be an “aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to disclosing secret information.


The Rosen case has been of most interest to Holder’s critics because of a May 15 remark he made to Congress about the leaks.


“With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in or heard of or would think would be a wise policy,” Holder said.


Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called Holder’s statement and the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether the attorney general lied under oath.


Holder wrote Sens. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, and James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, saying — as he did before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday — that he was reviewing his department’s guidelines regarding investigations involving the media.


“As part of this review, I have hosted a series of productive meetings with representatives of news organizations and other interested parties in order to solicit their valuable input,” Holder wrote. “I welcome your contributions to this process and hope that both of you will join the Deputy Attorney General and me when we schedule meetings with interested members of Congress.”


Read Holder’s letter (PDF)


Goodlatte replied in a letter signed by every GOP member of the House committee — but no Democrats — that none of Holder’s statements so far, nor those of his subordinates, “constitutes a satisfactory on-the-record response.” Goodlatte asked Holder to appear before the committee June 18 or, if that isn’t feasible, to pick a date between then and June 28, Goodlatte told Holder.


Referring to Holder’s May 15 testimony, the letter said, “This statement left members of the Committee and the American people with the clear understanding that the Department had never taken the unprecedented step of characterizing a member of the media as a criminal co-conspirator in a sworn court document.”


Read Goodlatte’s letter (PDF)


The White House and Justice Department have both issued statements saying Rosen was never prosecuted, so any assertion that Holder lied is wrong.


The Justice Department has also said that Holder recused himself from the AP probe because he had been interviewed about the leak during the investigation, but Republicans say the statement was missing a key piece of information: When did he recuse himself?


After hearing concerns that the Justice Department’s investigations had put reporters at a legal risk for simply doing their jobs, Holder sat down with various news executives last week. He is continuing those meetings this week.


“We expressed our concerns that reporters felt some fear for doing their jobs, that they were concerned about using their e-mail, using their office telephone and that we need to have the freedom to do their job,” Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said after the meeting.


Holder told NBC News on Wednesday that he would not step down amid criticism over security leaks investigations.




CNN.com – Politics



Holder: Leaks probes target government officials, not reporters

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Reporters say there"s a chill in the air


Barack Obama answers reporters

Journalists they fear their sources will go silent because of recent revelations. | AP Photo





President Barack Obama said recently that the Department of Justice’s monitoring of reporters as part of national security leak investigations could “chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.”


As far as many journalists are concerned, the president couldn’t have been more right – despite last week’s leaks to the media about secret NSA surveillance programs.



In conversations with POLITICO, national security reporters and watchdogs said they already have seen increased caution from government sources following revelations that the DOJ had subpoenaed Associated Press reporters’ phone records and tracked the comings and goings of Fox News reporter James Rosen at the State Department.


(Also on POLITICO: Civil libertarians; Where to go from here)


“I had one former intel officer say, ‘I hope you’re buying ‘burner’ phones for your sources,’ but I think he may have been pulling my leg,” said David Ignatius, the Washington Post’s national security columnist.


Reporters on the national security beat say it’s not the fear of being prosecuted by the DOJ that worries them – it’s the frightened silence of past trusted sources that could undermine the kind of investigative journalism that Obama was talking about.


Some formerly forthcoming sources have grown reluctant to return phone calls, even on unclassified matters, and, when they do talk, prefer in-person conversations that leave no phone logs, no emails, and no records of entering and leaving buildings, reporters and watchdogs said.


(WATCH: NSA reactions in under 60 seconds)


“The classic leak — of information or of government documents — is becoming more and more difficult and more and more rare because the points of contact between reporters and sources are subject to more and more scrutiny,” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, told POLITICO.


“Sources will avoid reporters simply so they don’t have to equivocate on a polygraph appearance,” he added. “In the 90s, you could call up government officials out of the phone book. In the years after 9/11, that became absolutely impossible.”


Some reporters and watchdogs argue that the climate didn’t change suddenly but rather slowly over a period of years, the result of intensified leak crackdowns that began during the George W. Bush administration and then expanded under Obama.


(Also on POLITICO: Tech frets public outcry over privacy)


“There is a chilling effect, but it’s as if you were gradually lowering the temperature of your freezer. There’s been a creeping, incremental phenomenon here for several years,” said Adam Zagorin, a Senior Fellow at The Project On Government Oversight. “The chill is cumulative, and the implication is that the government believes that the chilling effect — in order to be effective — needs to be periodically applied, to be imposed on multiple occasions.”


But the slow chill that started under the Bush Administration picked up significantly under Obama, according to reporters. Since 2009, when Obama took office, the Justice Department has undertaken six leak-related investigations — more than all other administrations combined.


“The chilling effect really started with the Bradley Manning episode,” one national security reporter told POLITICO, referring to the U.S. Army soldier who was arrested in 2010 and is currently standing trial for charges of leaking classified videos, army reports, and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.


“Over the last two to three years, there has been a real fear stemming from the Obama administration’s crackdown. Sources will go quiet for months, or stop talking altogether,” the reporter added.




POLITICO – TOP Stories



Reporters say there"s a chill in the air