Published time: May 25, 2013 02:36
President Barack Obama is the biggest threat to press freedom, one of the hallmarks of a true democracy, the United States has seen since former President Nixon, according to attorney James Goodale, widely seen as “the father of reporters’ privileges.”
Goodale is best known for using the First Amendment of the US
Constitution to successfully defend the New York Times after the
paper published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The documents, leaked
by Defense Department employee Daniel Ellsberg, revealed that four
presidents had deliberately misled US citizens regarding the
countries’ intentions in Vietnam. The Nixon administration sought
to block the publication of the documents, citing national security
and the Espionage Act.
The case is especially relevant today as the Obama
administration seeks to punish WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for
publishing diplomatic cables leaked by US Army soldier Bradley
Manning. The New York Times, the Guardian, and other outlets would
also go on to publish the same information revealed by Manning but
have not been targeted for punishment by the government
prosecutors.
Speaking with RT, Goodale also gave his opinion on the recent
scandals that saw the US Department of Justice tap phones used by
reporters, at least once going as far as to issue a search warrant
for a Fox News correspondents’ email account. All, presumably, as
part of an attempt to intimidate potential leakers and media
personnel into remaining silent on issues that plague the nation.
Goodale’s book, “Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the
Pentagon Papers and Other Battles,” is available now.
RT: In your new book you indicate that former US
President Richard Nixon was out to destroy the New York Times, but
you also argue that if President Obama succeeds at prosecuting
Julian Assange he will be worse than Nixon for press freedom, why
so?
James Goodale: Let me say one thing about Nixon. He was
out to destroy the New York Times, he was out to destroy Brookings
Institution, and a lot of other institutions in the United States.
President Obama is not out to destroy the Times. What we’re talking
about is a discreet area, which is the relationship of the press to
national security. In the Pentagon Papers area of national
security, Nixon was terrible. He also happened to be terrible in
the whole First Amendment area. Obama, by contrast, is okay in the
First Amendment area but not okay in national security. Why?
Because Obama has pursued six leakers, that’s the first bad
thing he’s done. The second bad thing he’s done is pursued
[reporter and leak recipient] James Risen. He’s also suing Julian
Assange. If he’s pursuing Julian Assange as a co-conspirator and
succeeds he’ll be worse than Nixon because Nixon tried to go after
the New York Times and its reporters saying they were
co-conspirators but Nixon failed.
RT: In this context you view Julian Assange as the
publisher, similar to the New York Times, similar to the Guardian,
and all the other news outlets that then published what Julian
Assange exposed through WikiLeaks. US officials maintain that
Assange compromised national security by publishing classified
documents. As you know, in America, sometimes the First Amendment
is trumped by national security issues when information is
disclosed when information is published that could threaten
soldiers on the battlefield, or threaten the lives of soldiers here
at home. Do you believe, honestly, that Assange should face no
consequences whatsoever?
JG: Yes, that’s right. The same claims were made about
the New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers. It was
destroying national security, it was destroying lives. The First
Amendment, in that case, trumped the claim of the Nixon
administration. Now here, you have to ask yourself, ‘Well what is
the First Amendment claim?’ The claim is that Assange can’t be
punished if, in fact, there’s no clear and present danger to the
country. If you look at the stuff that Assange published I would
argue there’s no clear and present danger to the country. It’s been
three years, where is the danger? You’re still here and I’m still
here. All claims sound terrible when it comes to national
security…In my book I look backwards at the Pentagon Papers and
there was no damage to national security. You have to look at these
claims with a jaundiced eye because after a period of time, you can
look at them, and there’s no danger.
RT: As you mentioned the Obama administration has
prosecuted more alleged leakers under the Espionage Act than all
previous administrations combined. Do you believe that leakers such
as Bradley Manning should be subject to some
discipline?
JG: Yes, I do. I would think that if you started leaking
information for the organization you work for then you ought to be
fired. I think every organization ought to have a control over its
employees, and therefore I think that the 20 years to which Bradley
Manning has agreed probably is a good sentence. I think the
question with Bradley Manning right now is, is he agreed to 20
years but the government wants to give him life. I just wonder if
that’s appropriate but I do believe every organization ought to be
able to discipline its employees.
RT: Then do you fault the Department of Justice for
trying to find out who the leakers are, because as you well know
there’s been a scandal with the DoJ secretly obtaining the phone
records from Associated Press journalists and they also obtained
the warrant to search the email of a Fox News reporter. Do you
defend the US government in trying to find out who the leakers
are?
JG: Well I think there is two things. We’ve got six
leaker prosecutions, three in the whole history of the United
States before then. Everyone leaks in Washington because everyone
has got access to national security information. I think the Obama
administration has got to dial it back. He’s dialed it back on
drones but six [leak prosecutions] is too many. Once you start
getting everybody, some of these cases start to blow up in your
face.
Then the second question is how you go about it. I don’t think,
when the government is concerned about the behavior of its own
employees, that it ought to take the press and throw them into the
middle of it, which is what they have done in what we call
Rosengate. James Rosen is the reporter for Fox News who was the
subject of a search warrant, on a theory that he was a
co-conspirator with a gentleman named Kim. I mean, when I look at
you, you don’t look like a co-conspirator to me. But if you were to
start covering some Washington stories, which inevitably involve
national security information, you’re subject to be called a
co-conspirator. Legally I could give you the whole song and dance
but just for your viewers, and common sense, we know reporters
aren’t co-conspirators and we know their records shouldn’t be
subject to search warrants. Come on — lay off, President
Obama.
RT: Do you think they’re doing this to intimidate US
journalists from seeking information and publishing these reports
on national security issues?
JG: Sure, if they did that to your colleague here you
could be intimidated. They’re also trying to intimidate those who
leak and, as I said, I think they should use some discretion there
because when the president speaks to you, he’s leaking. Have you
ever thought about that? Every piece of information in Washington,
particularly the information which he has his hands on, is
classified…So the impact is we have less information, we have less
power, and the government — by keeping the information secret —
they become more powerful. That’s not good for any of us.
RT: As a result of the AP and Fox News scandals the
New Yorker has launched Strongbox, an online drop box that allows
anyone to send leaked documents without their identities ever being
known. So this way if the Justice Department asks anyone from the
New Yorker magazine ‘Where did you get this information? Who
was your source?’ the New Yorker says ‘We don’t know.’ Don’t
you find it interesting that the New Yorker is now using the First
Amendment practices of Julian Assange to protect the Bradley
Manning’s of the world?
JG: It doesn’t surprise me at all, because that’s what
the New Yorker should be doing in the digital age. That’s what
publishers do. After the Julian Assange story broke the New York
Times said they were going to set one up and I think the Wall
Street Journal, too. Now Obama is saying he wants to get Assange,
but Assange is just like the New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal.
Obama might as well go get the New York Times, and that’s what I’m
here to say I’m scared about.
RT: During his speech on Thursday President Obama did
say that he’s troubled by the possibility that the Department of
Justice investigations into leaks may “chill the type of journalism
that holds government accountable.” As a result, he’s calling on
Congress to pass a Media Shield law to guard against government
overreach. Do you think that will help to do anything or is it just
rhetoric?
JG: I think it’s probably both. What he said was he wants
Chuck Schumer, our Senator in New York, to put the bill in. So
Schumer gets up and says ‘Look, I’m going to put it in but first
we’re going to make an exception so it doesn’t cover WikiLeaks’ and
the second thing he said is that it won’t cover national security.
I will say, in defense of Schumer, that the old bill on which this
is placed didn’t completely eliminate all national security leaks
but it had a provision in there that made it very difficult to
justify so I question whether that is worth the camel. But gee
whiz, we’re not going to protect Julian Assange when the New Yorker
is doing the same thing.
RT: There have certainly been some cases where
journalists have abused their power. A recent example is that
Bloomberg reporters are facing a scandal after being accused of
accessing private data on the Bloomberg terminal to further their
reporting. Do you see this is as big deal?
JG: Yes I think that’s a big deal. It’s a little bit like
the Rupert Murdoch scandal in London when the papers were
hacking in [to a murder victim’s cell phone]. This isn’t hacking, I
suppose, but it is the same effect. You’ve got to have privacy for
your emails but I’m not defending the Bloomberg journalists. I
think we’ve got to realize that we’re in a new, digital world and
we’ve got to get clear on what the rules are because it’s so easy
to cheat.
RT: You’ve been called the father of reporters’
privileges. What do you see as the current threats to press freedom
in the United States?
JG: It, frankly, is President Obama and Rosengate because
this is the first time the — I hate to use the term ‘Espionage
Act,’ we’ll say national security act for your viewers — has been
used to get reporters. I mean, that really is frightening because
it’s usually used to get leakers. Rosen is a leakee, to use legal
phraseology. If the Obama administration, or at least his Justice
Department, thinks they can use criminal laws to get journalists
because they’re co-conspirators, honestly that is one of the worst
things I’ve come across in all the years I’ve been doing
this.
RT: In closing, I mentioned your book at the beginning
of the interview, what do you hope that readers get from your
book?
JG: Well, the purpose of the book is to learn the lesson
from the Pentagon Papers, which is to say any president who messes
with national security is going to be in deep yogurt. Wake up,
America. Wake up, President Obama. President Obama, don’t go after
Julian Assange and call him a co-conspirator, that’s bad for
everybody.
This article originally appeared on: RT