But let us not be hasty, and let us not legislate in a climate of fear or prejudice. For, in such an atmosphere, it is our constitutional freedoms and our cherished civil rights that are the first to be sacrificed in the false service of our national security."
Nader Warns Obama's and Bush's Military and Foreign Policies Have Put Us at Greater Risk Than WikiLeaks
Much of the hearing raised alarms or was cautionary about taking drastic measures.
"I'm very disturbed by the reaction of Attorney General Holder. I think he's reacting to political pressure and he's starting to fix the law to meet the enforcement policy. And, that's very dangerous," Nader testified. "He said the other day, 'The national security of the United States has been put at risk, the lives of the people who work for the American people have been put at risk, and the people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided, and ultimately not helpful in any way,' referring to the WikiLeaks disclosures via the New York Times and The Guardian and other newspapers. Those very words could apply to the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration's military and foreign policy. They have put us at greater risk."
Disseminating Information is "Classic Journalism"
Oddly, Lowell, a man who served as Chief Investigative Counsel to the Minority in the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton and who represented Sam Waksal of ImClone, Gary Condit during the Chandra Levy investigation and currently represents employees at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who are being investigated for allegedly disclosing classified information, gave a pretty good argument for caution when going after WikiLeaks. Lowell contended, "In American history, the function of gathering information from the government by whatever source and disseminating it to the public is classic journalism."
"I understand that we're grappling to try and figure out where the First Amendment applies and who is a journalist and who isn't. And, I know many have said WikiLeaks and Assange are not because they, to use the phrase, "dump data" or they don't perform the function of being selective. I think that's a dangerous slope to be standing on because it puts in the editorial room individual prosecutors, who will make the decision as to who is a journalist and who isn't and to individual courts all over the place as to what deserves First Amendment protection and what does not. And it doesn't distinguish well between what WikiLeaks has done and when a more traditional media outlet posts a document in total on its website."
Far More Damaging Than the Pentagon Papers
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).