CPJ Report: the Obama Administration and Press Freedoms 289
dryriver writes "Committee To Protect Journalists reports: U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists. In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An 'Insider Threat Program' being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues. Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press—compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations. Still more criminal investigations into leaks are under way. Reporters' phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being 'an aider, abettor and/or conspirator' of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail."
More examples (Score:3, Informative)
* Hushing up Fast 'n Furious debacle by executive privilege.
* Gagging Benghazi witnesses, even forbidding them from testifying to Congress.
* Blaming Benghazi on a stupid YouTube video for weeks (right before the election -- we have to make the attack seem "spontaneous" so it looks our policies have ended terrorism), knowing full well that it's a lie.
I could go on all day, but I do have to actually work. Most of these things (all three of the cases I mentioned) happened before His reelection, so it was completely obvious to those of us who aren't idiots what kind of president this guy was/is. Now, time to wait for said idiots to try to deflect the issue by talking about how bad Republicans are (happens every time, as if these turds get their marching orders from On High; so predictable).
you mean zero. soldier to USSR != journalist (Score:4, Informative)
By 15, mean 0, right? I see that in the 1980s a service member and a CIA agent were prosecuted for selling information to the Soviets. I'm not finding any journalists being prosecuted until Obama.
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm. Wait. Sanity check. Obama did NOT nationalize the auto industry or the healthcare industry.
I know you're refering to the government buying a controlling interest of GM stock. GM was in trouble and needed some money to stay afloat. The government bought a ton of stock (which I happen to think is better than just GIVING them money), it did NOT tell the company how to run, and then it SOLD the stock(I think even at a profit) once GM was on it's feet again. It did all this to prevent GM from folding and causing huge job losses.
I also know that you're refering to Obamacare, AKA, the ACA. I WISH the government had nationalized the healthcare industry, but mandating that you buy insurance from a NON GOVERNMENT insurance company is a far cry from nationalizing anything.
So, basically, you're so wrong we can't even talk to you. Obama didn't nationalize squat. Look to Venezeula if you want to see a country nationalizing private industries. There's none of that here. Your belief is a fantasy. Kool-Aide indeed.
Re:You asked for this (Score:4, Informative)
The US needs a new voting system [wikipedia.org], one that doesn't favor two-party control. What if, heaven forbid, there were a third party with no ties to the other two, and a bill actually were judged on its merits rather than on the party that proposed it?
The problem is the corporate media, who have convinced everyone that voting for a loser is a wasted vote. People don't use logic; rub two brain cells together and you'll see that if that's true, everyone who voted for Romney wasted their vote.
Last Presidential election there were five parties on enough ballots that they could win the White House. The people who own the corporate media also own the corporations that bribe candidates with campaign contributions. Give a million to each candidate and it doesn't matter who loses, you win. If the media weren't corrupt they would have covered all five viable candidates, but that would mean they would have to bribe five parties instead of just two.
Personally, I refuse to vote R or D. Everyone has friends and family who smoke pot, why are you voting for men who want your friends and family in prison? That's just madness. The liberal Greens and the conservative Libertarians don't want your loved ones in jail, vote for one of them instead.
If you actually smoke pot yourself and voted for Romney or Obama you're just fucking retarded.
Re:You asked for this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:4, Informative)
Ideally no but here in the US if you are voting third party your choices are either really far left or really far right mixing church and state. Libertarian is the closest thing to a middle ground that there is in our third parties.