Evildoers Beware!

NYT, Guardian, and ProPublica Join Forces

For the first time, a National Security Agency leak has been published simultaneously by three different news organizations. The New York Times, the Guardian, and ProPublica all joined forces following a tumultuous experience with British authorities last month.

As ProPublica made clear in their eloquent explanation, an important relationship exists between publishing leaks and protecting civil liberties:

There are those who, in good faith, believe that we should leave the balance between civil liberty and security entirely to our elected leaders, and to those they place in positions of executive responsibility. Again, we do not agree. The American system, as we understand it, is premised on the idea -- championed by such men as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison -- that government run amok poses the greatest potential threat to the people’s liberty, and that an informed citizenry is the necessary check on this threat. The sort of work ProPublica does -- watchdog journalism -- is a key element in helping the public play this role.

As we've seen lately, government abuse has finally reached a point where no one can go it alone. The lone journalist who attempts to speak truth to power is sure to fail, pulled down both by the power he attempts to hold accountable and by his own peers, who enjoy their access to government officials far too much to speak up.

Luckily, journalists are finally learning the meaning of "United we stand, divided we fall." While it is easy to call for the prosecution of a lone journalist who reports on government abuses, very little can be done about three major news organizations working together. Even if the government were to push back, we would see the alliance between journalists strengthen -- as it did following the destruction of the Guardian's hard-drives -- rather than weaken. More alliances like these are needed to keep the ball rolling toward transparency.

TREASON!

Another round of "Is Glenn Greenwald a real journalist?"

HotAir's Jazz Shaw has begun another round of "Is Glenn Greenwald a real journalist?" in a piece entitled "Defining Glenn Greenwald". The answer to that question will, obviously, determine the fate of the world. There's no other explanation for its constant recurrence.

Shaw's main beef with Greenwald, surprisingly, is not that Greenwald is publishing classified information, but that he is not publishing it all at once. Greenwald, he suggests, is releasing the documents "in dribs and drabs" in order to ingratiate himself with the public, because "Glenn is in the business of promoting Glenn."

Unfortunately, he blasts Greenwald's character with what appears to be a complete fabrication (emphasis added):

"when the White House indicated that they would be pursuing Snowden, Greenwald immediately resorted to threats, indicated that if 'anything happens' to him, he would open the floodgates."

Goodness me! What Greenwald actually said is that Snowden is no longer the sole possessor of the NSA documents, so their publication does not depend upon Snowden's freedom. He never said anything about changing the frequency of publication in reaction to something happening to Snowden.

A lot of misinformation gets around about Greenwald, but today was downright silly. Elsewhere, the Huffington Post's headline blared: "GREENWALD VOWS VENGEANCE: ENGLAND 'WILL BE SORRY'," to which Andrea Peterson of the Washington Post responded with a sobering blog post: "No, Glenn Greenwald didn't 'vow vengeance.' He said he was going to do his job." Cue weary sigh.

Heathrow Airport, Part Deux

Reactions to the Heathrow airport incident continue to pour in along with more information: namely that David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, is on the Guardian payroll [Amnesty Int'l] and was carrying documents from documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras intended for Mr. Greenwald [NY Times]. Whether that makes Mr. Miranda a journalist or not (there will be needless debate, I'm sure), there can be no doubt that this was an attack on investigative journalism. Authorities, in their determination to squelch any further embarrassments, are willing to intimidate not just nosy journalists like Mr. Greenwald, but their associates as well. Never mind that Mr. Greenwald has done nothing illegal. So who HAS done something illegal? Edward Snowden, allegedly. Mr. Greenwald, an associate, is once removed, and Mr. Miranda, an associate of Mr. Greenwald, is twice removed. That means that UK authorities, like the NSA, are now targeting individuals "two hops" from alleged criminals. So you might want to tighten up your circle of friends.

Heathrow Airport

Hello, my darlings. It's good to be back. The Guardian reported today that the partner of Glenn Greenwald (one of the journalists who broke the NSA story) was detained this Sunday at Heathrow airport in London for nine hours. This was done under a provision of the UK's Terrorism Act of 2000, which allows airport authorities to detain and question travelers for up to nine hours. According to the Home Office, fewer than 1 in 2,000 people are held that long. Most travelers, obviously, are never selected for examination to begin with; according to the Home Office again, it's "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000." The number of those who undergo the full 9-hour marathon, then, is exceedingly small. Of those 3 in 10,000 who are examined, fewer than 1 in 2,000 are examined for nine hours. In other words, this is an exceptionally rare case.

You would assume, then, that David Miranda, the individual involved, was a dangerous threat to the lives of his fellow travelers. Because surely airport authorities would only exercise this rarely-invoked power in order to protect us. It must have been a matter of life and death. Save me, my darlings!

In actuality, however, it is much more likely that the British government or its American allies wanted to send a message to Greenwald about his investigative journalism. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that authorities have used their post-9/11 powers to harass politically-active travelers. That's because in the US, airports are the one place where the government can ignore the Fourth Amendment and openly intimidate its enemies by searching and confiscating their property. Coincidentally, Greenwald himself has addressed this phenomenon in the past,

• including in 2011 ("Will Congress act to curb the shocking abuses U.S. citizens encounter when re-entering their own country?")
• and in 2010, when a Bradley Manning supporter had his cellphones and laptop seized upon re-entering the US.

These seem like gross misuses of power to me. But what about the rest of you, my darling readers? Many of you seem willing to put up with increased airport security in order to curb terrorism, but how many of you will put up with increased airport security if it's being used to intimidate the government's political enemies? Not many, I hope.

In parting, I have just one question for you, my lovelies. Will you be my happy blog friends?