10 ms·

Could Glenn Greenwald go to jail? The law is alarmingly murky

89 points by Libertatea 13y ago

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
I hope they do arrest him. If that doesn't start some sort of rebellion then nothing will. We already allowed Obama's administration to create laws that stop whistleblower's from coming out of the shadows. Now the law is 'murky' on the people that would report it in the first place? What the hell happened to the country we (as in US Citizens) love? I didn't pledge allegiance to this? If anything this sounds like a government that is threatening our freedoms more than any domestic or international terrorists ever could!
gwgarry 13y ago
Oh look MSM telling journalists to shut the fuck up or face jail time because the law is murky. If this is not censorship through threats, I don't know what is.
revscat 13y ago
Again the conversation shifts away from the bureaucracy and towards those who threaten it. While TFA brings up an important and interesting subject, we would as a nation be better served by focusing energies on the NSA and the various other intelligence agencies.
- msg 13y ago
  Ezra Klein you might call a government watchdog. The Wonkblog is dedicated to data-driven investigative journalism of government policy and programs. I think you could read the article better as Ezra Klein wondering if Ezra Klein can be charged with a crime for doing his job (maybe it's more of a calling than a job, I don't know). My view, the journalists are in a self-centered way raising the question of whether Greenwald should be charged with a crime because they see their faces in the mirror of his face. The boundaries the national security state is setting on journalism are still very fluid. The Obama administration, unfortunately, has changed the status quo of what kinds of leaks and sources will be prosecuted. It is having a chilling effect on insider journalism. Naturally all the insiders are curious about who will be called an outsider and what the fate of the outsider will be.
- pyre 13y ago
  | Again the conversation shifts away from the | bureaucracy and towards those who threaten it. Journalism is about presenting both sides of a story so that the reader can make up their own mind. It's also worth noting that you're bringing up a single article to show that "the conversation is shifting." By this logic, I could bring up any story in any publication that doesn't have anything to do with the NSA and claim that the MSM is trying to bury the story by reporting on Hollywood gossip or something else. I agree that the focus should be on the NSA, but hopefully all of the stories about the subject matter keep the topic in the public's thoughts. Possibly enough for some people to do more research and change their minds (from "All the way NSA!" to "Hmmm. Maybe they went too far").
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
    Incorrect. Fair and balanced does not mean you have to mix facts and conjecture; that's what editorials are for. The problem is that journalism today blurs the lines between the two. Halfway between the truth and a lie is still a lie.
  - toyg 13y ago
    "Both sides"? What about Rashomon? Please don't fall in the bipolar disease typical of modern politics. All sides in a story should be covered. Still, you have to agree that the MSM way too often derails the conversation towards personalism and unrelated issues and away from actual policy topics, usually following this or that agenda, just because novels sell better than political essays. This should be taught in journalism school, nowadays, but it's clearly not the case.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      In a way it's off-topic, but your comment very much reminded my of something Tony Benn said in an interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80&t=2h36m47s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80&t=2h36m47s ): "Nowadays, all you do is hear the media's description of what the candidate is saying, and one of the strange things about it is that politics is now presented in terms of politicians and not politics. I don't think the media is interested in politics, they're interested in politicians, which is a wholly different subject... who's doing this, about their private life, about their background, about what they must be thinking, might be thinking when they said something, why did they say it; but what they say is very, very hard to hear. And I think this is, in a sense, indeed quite deliberately, destroying the genuine democratic base on which people are elected."
- mtgx 13y ago
  I agree, but at the same time these journalists should be defended - sadly, I think only by us, because most of the media won't defend their own in this case, and they'd rather side with the government.
- GHFigs 13y ago
  I think that's a misread. The purpose of the story is to make it appear that WaPo is on the case and to keep you on the edge of your seat, even though nothing has actually happened, and the article itself strongly suggests that nothing will. It's not supposed to shift the conversation anywhere, but to keep you talking and reading the news, even though there isn't any news to talk about.
freerobby 13y ago
The good news is that the law notwithstanding, the politics of arresting a journalist in a situation like this are unfavorable to the Justice Department. Holder recently gave Congressional testimony saying he thinks it would be a bad idea to charge journalists in leak cases. His words were: "That is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, would think would be wise policy."[1] Whatever you make of the rest of his testimony (and whether he lied about investigating Rosen), it would be harder for him to go after journalists after saying that to Congress. [1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/justice-dept-says-holder-didnt-lie-before-congressional-committee/ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/justice-dept...
yardie 13y ago
I think even the public can comprehend the 1st amendment. Could Greenwald go to jail? Possibly. But then the justice department would have every lawyer looking to make a name for themselves chomping at the bit. A case like that puts you on the fast track to the Supreme Court.
scottshea 13y ago
And in a 5-4 decision the US Supreme court rules that he can be prosecuted (just looking into my cystal ball)
pvnick 13y ago
Previously I would say the American public would riot in the streets should a reporter be charged with the crime of journalism. Based on the reaction to the revelation that the NSA is watching every single piece of Internet communication in the world, now I'm not so sure. The apathy to all matters beyond "Kim Kardashian is fat now" is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Edit: Just wanted to add in a thought. The only thing keeping a lawless government from pulling stunts like this is the fear of citizen revolt, and even then they generally proceed if the projected revolution strength is sufficiently weak.
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  Because rioting is an immature, knee-jerk reaction people in countries without proper avenues of political expression, e.g. the poor or uneducated, take? Riots are a way to signal the elites that the population feels some way. The U.S. has non-destructive ways of doing that, even if less emotionally satisfying than burning shit to make a point. Note that present polling indicates Americans, while holding a positive opinion of Snowden, still feel he should be prosecuted.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Non-destructive ways of doing that, like what? Electing a new President who very believably promises to do the opposite of what the last one did?
    - rz2k 13y ago
      However, the problem is not that elected officials are not listening to the people, it is that there is little concern from the electorate about privacy rights. Ultimately, the country does belong to you more for understanding the problems of eroding privacy rights more than someone who doesn't. One could argue that rioting would change the conversation in a productive way, but I expect it would further the cause of authoritarians if a group of people behind a minority viewpoint tried to advance their cause through the violence of rioting. I firmly believe that democracy can only function with transparency and a free press, but those are means to democracy, not a goal in themselves. It makes no sense to wish for riots, which are intrinsically anti-democratic when not expressing the will of the majority, for the sake of making a country safer for democracy. Much as when our country was torturing people, the problem is less that of a disobedient set of elected officials, and more that of some really bad ideas that are held by a large portion of the population. Unfortunately, right now the problem is not politicians who can be easily demonized, but a population that for now is largely ignorant about the power of data.
zwegner 13y ago
Funny that they don't mention that the Washington Post also published classified info, and that perhaps they "aided and abetted" Snowden, to some "extent"...
elmuchoprez 13y ago
I don't know what the actual legal position on this is, but I think that public sentiment usually recognizes that: 1.) There is a legitimate need for classified information within a government; 2.) The purpose of classified information is not to cover up illegal activities by the government. So when it comes to revealing classified information, if it is done to expose a crime, I think the US public generally supports that. But in this case, near as I can tell, no crime was exposed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? So now there's the question of whether or not PRISM should have been legal, and whether or not exposing classified information to put a spotlight on that discussion is legit. And I don't know how I feel about that let alone what the public at large thinks about it.
- danielweber 13y ago
  This is an article designed to generate rage-views. Greenwald isn't going to jail. Tim B Lee is HN's Rush Limbaugh, getting people into a lather about things that might happen (in the sense that they wouldn't violate any laws of physics) and getting them to freak out about that.
- pvnick 13y ago
  >Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? Remember, even the Stasi was legal. But no, these programs violate the 4th amendment.
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    Not technically, as they only get to search collected data with a warrant from the FISC. Now we're getting into the territory of strict vs. liberal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. In a world that could not have foreseen the ability of the US government to quite literally record everything, and thusly didn't include in the 4th amendment a protection against ex post facto search and seizure, something beyond even sci-fi at that point.
    - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
DanBC 13y ago
It's baffling to me that country like America with strong 1st amendment and freedom of speech culture has people who think a journalist should be put in prison. So, now, a whistle-blower needs to have strong anonymity and privacy to pass information on, and the newspaper needs to be strong enough to protect its journalists. And when this might mean that the editor goes to jail (contempt laws?) that's a lot to ask. But would any sane government push things that far? Locking up the editor of a newspaper for not handing over the name of a journalist? (I'm about to web-search, but have any American journalists been jailed for not giving up the names of their sources?)
- geg3 13y ago
  I don't know about American journalists, but here's a thread worth unraveling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye With the War on Terror coming home, should Americans expect special treatment?
BrandonMarc 13y ago
The question that keeps coming up is whether being a journalist means you get special privileges. It's hilarious that David Gregory suggests Glen Greenwald be charged with a crime, seeing as Gregory, it will be further recalled, illustrated an anti-gun law by violating it on the air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Hb6c2tWl0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Hb6c2tWl0 So if you go along with the idea that a journalist gets special privileges, what defines a journalist? Is Ariana Huffington one? Howard Stern? How about Rush Limbaugh? How about a famous blogger? How about a not-so-famous blogger? An anchor for Fox News? Hmm. For many, these are uncomfortable questions. After all, what happens when journalists fail to do their job, because they either can't get the info or won't report on it? Julian Assange is proof of that issue. Is he a journalist? Once upon a time you just needed to be bureaucrat. Today the thing to be is a bureaucrat with a badge. Bruce Schneier calls this phenomenon "privilege escalation". He cites the example of transit cops whose main ambition was to drop the "transit" part of their job description. Fascinating commentary here: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/24/do-you-know-who-i-am/ http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/24/do-you-know-w... It becomes a matter of "who you are" instead of equal application of the law to everybody. Frankly I despise the idea that journalists should have a different set of rules from the rest of us. Equally-applied laws make should be beyond question ... I can't believe people are even arguing whether laws should be applied to everyone equally. Especially defenders of the 1st amendment.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  The companies behind an Investigative Journalist are ultimately responsible for the content they agree to publish through their respective channels. In the case of classified information, Greenwald received the information and ultimately it was vetted by others in his department what could and could not be published.
gasull 13y ago
I can't help thinking that the headline is more a suggestion than a question.

89 points by Libertatea 13y ago

I hope they do arrest him. If that doesn't start some sort of rebellion then nothing will. We already allowed Obama's administration to create laws that stop whistleblower's from coming out of the shadows. Now the law is 'murky' on the people that would report it in the first place? What the hell happened to the country we (as in US Citizens) love? I didn't pledge allegiance to this? If anything this sounds like a government that is threatening our freedoms more than any domestic or international terrorists ever could!

gwgarry 13y ago

Oh look MSM telling journalists to shut the fuck up or face jail time because the law is murky. If this is not censorship through threats, I don't know what is.

revscat 13y ago

Again the conversation shifts away from the bureaucracy and towards those who threaten it. While TFA brings up an important and interesting subject, we would as a nation be better served by focusing energies on the NSA and the various other intelligence agencies.

msg 13y ago
Ezra Klein you might call a government watchdog. The Wonkblog is dedicated to data-driven investigative journalism of government policy and programs. I think you could read the article better as Ezra Klein wondering if Ezra Klein can be charged with a crime for doing his job (maybe it's more of a calling than a job, I don't know). My view, the journalists are in a self-centered way raising the question of whether Greenwald should be charged with a crime because they see their faces in the mirror of his face. The boundaries the national security state is setting on journalism are still very fluid. The Obama administration, unfortunately, has changed the status quo of what kinds of leaks and sources will be prosecuted. It is having a chilling effect on insider journalism. Naturally all the insiders are curious about who will be called an outsider and what the fate of the outsider will be.
pyre 13y ago
| Again the conversation shifts away from the | bureaucracy and towards those who threaten it. Journalism is about presenting both sides of a story so that the reader can make up their own mind. It's also worth noting that you're bringing up a single article to show that "the conversation is shifting." By this logic, I could bring up any story in any publication that doesn't have anything to do with the NSA and claim that the MSM is trying to bury the story by reporting on Hollywood gossip or something else. I agree that the focus should be on the NSA, but hopefully all of the stories about the subject matter keep the topic in the public's thoughts. Possibly enough for some people to do more research and change their minds (from "All the way NSA!" to "Hmmm. Maybe they went too far").
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  Incorrect. Fair and balanced does not mean you have to mix facts and conjecture; that's what editorials are for. The problem is that journalism today blurs the lines between the two. Halfway between the truth and a lie is still a lie.
- toyg 13y ago
  "Both sides"? What about Rashomon? Please don't fall in the bipolar disease typical of modern politics. All sides in a story should be covered. Still, you have to agree that the MSM way too often derails the conversation towards personalism and unrelated issues and away from actual policy topics, usually following this or that agenda, just because novels sell better than political essays. This should be taught in journalism school, nowadays, but it's clearly not the case.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    In a way it's off-topic, but your comment very much reminded my of something Tony Benn said in an interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80&t=2h36m47s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80&t=2h36m47s ): "Nowadays, all you do is hear the media's description of what the candidate is saying, and one of the strange things about it is that politics is now presented in terms of politicians and not politics. I don't think the media is interested in politics, they're interested in politicians, which is a wholly different subject... who's doing this, about their private life, about their background, about what they must be thinking, might be thinking when they said something, why did they say it; but what they say is very, very hard to hear. And I think this is, in a sense, indeed quite deliberately, destroying the genuine democratic base on which people are elected."
mtgx 13y ago
I agree, but at the same time these journalists should be defended - sadly, I think only by us, because most of the media won't defend their own in this case, and they'd rather side with the government.
GHFigs 13y ago
I think that's a misread. The purpose of the story is to make it appear that WaPo is on the case and to keep you on the edge of your seat, even though nothing has actually happened, and the article itself strongly suggests that nothing will. It's not supposed to shift the conversation anywhere, but to keep you talking and reading the news, even though there isn't any news to talk about.

freerobby 13y ago

The good news is that the law notwithstanding, the politics of arresting a journalist in a situation like this are unfavorable to the Justice Department. Holder recently gave Congressional testimony saying he thinks it would be a bad idea to charge journalists in leak cases. His words were: "That is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, would think would be wise policy."[1] Whatever you make of the rest of his testimony (and whether he lied about investigating Rosen), it would be harder for him to go after journalists after saying that to Congress. [1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/justice-dept-says-holder-didnt-lie-before-congressional-committee/ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/justice-dept...

yardie 13y ago

I think even the public can comprehend the 1st amendment. Could Greenwald go to jail? Possibly. But then the justice department would have every lawyer looking to make a name for themselves chomping at the bit. A case like that puts you on the fast track to the Supreme Court.

scottshea 13y ago

And in a 5-4 decision the US Supreme court rules that he can be prosecuted (just looking into my cystal ball)

pvnick 13y ago

Previously I would say the American public would riot in the streets should a reporter be charged with the crime of journalism. Based on the reaction to the revelation that the NSA is watching every single piece of Internet communication in the world, now I'm not so sure. The apathy to all matters beyond "Kim Kardashian is fat now" is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Edit: Just wanted to add in a thought. The only thing keeping a lawless government from pulling stunts like this is the fear of citizen revolt, and even then they generally proceed if the projected revolution strength is sufficiently weak.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
Because rioting is an immature, knee-jerk reaction people in countries without proper avenues of political expression, e.g. the poor or uneducated, take? Riots are a way to signal the elites that the population feels some way. The U.S. has non-destructive ways of doing that, even if less emotionally satisfying than burning shit to make a point. Note that present polling indicates Americans, while holding a positive opinion of Snowden, still feel he should be prosecuted.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Non-destructive ways of doing that, like what? Electing a new President who very believably promises to do the opposite of what the last one did?
  - rz2k 13y ago
    However, the problem is not that elected officials are not listening to the people, it is that there is little concern from the electorate about privacy rights. Ultimately, the country does belong to you more for understanding the problems of eroding privacy rights more than someone who doesn't. One could argue that rioting would change the conversation in a productive way, but I expect it would further the cause of authoritarians if a group of people behind a minority viewpoint tried to advance their cause through the violence of rioting. I firmly believe that democracy can only function with transparency and a free press, but those are means to democracy, not a goal in themselves. It makes no sense to wish for riots, which are intrinsically anti-democratic when not expressing the will of the majority, for the sake of making a country safer for democracy. Much as when our country was torturing people, the problem is less that of a disobedient set of elected officials, and more that of some really bad ideas that are held by a large portion of the population. Unfortunately, right now the problem is not politicians who can be easily demonized, but a population that for now is largely ignorant about the power of data.

zwegner 13y ago

Funny that they don't mention that the Washington Post also published classified info, and that perhaps they "aided and abetted" Snowden, to some "extent"...

elmuchoprez 13y ago

I don't know what the actual legal position on this is, but I think that public sentiment usually recognizes that: 1.) There is a legitimate need for classified information within a government; 2.) The purpose of classified information is not to cover up illegal activities by the government. So when it comes to revealing classified information, if it is done to expose a crime, I think the US public generally supports that. But in this case, near as I can tell, no crime was exposed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? So now there's the question of whether or not PRISM should have been legal, and whether or not exposing classified information to put a spotlight on that discussion is legit. And I don't know how I feel about that let alone what the public at large thinks about it.

danielweber 13y ago
This is an article designed to generate rage-views. Greenwald isn't going to jail. Tim B Lee is HN's Rush Limbaugh, getting people into a lather about things that might happen (in the sense that they wouldn't violate any laws of physics) and getting them to freak out about that.
pvnick 13y ago
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? Remember, even the Stasi was legal. But no, these programs violate the 4th amendment.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  Not technically, as they only get to search collected data with a warrant from the FISC. Now we're getting into the territory of strict vs. liberal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. In a world that could not have foreseen the ability of the US government to quite literally record everything, and thusly didn't include in the 4th amendment a protection against ex post facto search and seizure, something beyond even sci-fi at that point.
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

It's baffling to me that country like America with strong 1st amendment and freedom of speech culture has people who think a journalist should be put in prison. So, now, a whistle-blower needs to have strong anonymity and privacy to pass information on, and the newspaper needs to be strong enough to protect its journalists. And when this might mean that the editor goes to jail (contempt laws?) that's a lot to ask. But would any sane government push things that far? Locking up the editor of a newspaper for not handing over the name of a journalist? (I'm about to web-search, but have any American journalists been jailed for not giving up the names of their sources?)

geg3 13y ago
I don't know about American journalists, but here's a thread worth unraveling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye With the War on Terror coming home, should Americans expect special treatment?

BrandonMarc 13y ago

The question that keeps coming up is whether being a journalist means you get special privileges. It's hilarious that David Gregory suggests Glen Greenwald be charged with a crime, seeing as Gregory, it will be further recalled, illustrated an anti-gun law by violating it on the air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Hb6c2tWl0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Hb6c2tWl0 So if you go along with the idea that a journalist gets special privileges, what defines a journalist? Is Ariana Huffington one? Howard Stern? How about Rush Limbaugh? How about a famous blogger? How about a not-so-famous blogger? An anchor for Fox News? Hmm. For many, these are uncomfortable questions. After all, what happens when journalists fail to do their job, because they either can't get the info or won't report on it? Julian Assange is proof of that issue. Is he a journalist? Once upon a time you just needed to be bureaucrat. Today the thing to be is a bureaucrat with a badge. Bruce Schneier calls this phenomenon "privilege escalation". He cites the example of transit cops whose main ambition was to drop the "transit" part of their job description. Fascinating commentary here: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/24/do-you-know-who-i-am/ http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/24/do-you-know-w... It becomes a matter of "who you are" instead of equal application of the law to everybody. Frankly I despise the idea that journalists should have a different set of rules from the rest of us. Equally-applied laws make should be beyond question ... I can't believe people are even arguing whether laws should be applied to everyone equally. Especially defenders of the 1st amendment.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
The companies behind an Investigative Journalist are ultimately responsible for the content they agree to publish through their respective channels. In the case of classified information, Greenwald received the information and ultimately it was vetted by others in his department what could and could not be published.

gasull 13y ago

I can't help thinking that the headline is more a suggestion than a question.