Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Not Satire: Obama Administration Bans Officials from Mentioning the News

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   News 1   Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 5/10/14

Reprinted from Daily Kos

By *David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour)

From youtube.com/watch?v=p4MKm2uFqVQ: President Obama
President Obama
(image by YouTube)


When President Obama stated last year that his White House is "the most transparent administration in history," he acknowledged that this pronouncement did not necessarily translate to the national security arena.

What he failed to say is that, with regard to "national security" concerns, this White House has become historically and bombastically opaque -- so much so that articles such as this one require the "not satire" tag.

Per The New York Times:

"The Obama administration is clamping down on a technique that government officials have long used to join in public discussions of well-known but technically still-secret information: citing news reports based on unauthorized disclosures.

"A new pre-publication review policy for the Office of Director of National Intelligence says the agency's current and former employees and contractors may not cite news reports based on leaks in their speeches, opinion articles, books, term papers or other unofficial writings."

Meaning: both current and former officials are now prohibited from mentioning the existence of a news report based upon leaked classified information. We're not talking here about a prohibition against leaking information or validating that a leak has occurred. We're talking about a prohibition against acknowledging that, say, a New York Times article about leaked information which everyone has read even exists.

The penalties for doing so -- for neutrally citing the existence of a news report -- include demotions and loss of security clearances. This policy is apparently part of the directive set in March by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, prohibiting officials at 17 intelligence agencies from talking to the press without prior approval.

Experts and intelligence officials are finding the new policy not just absurd, but potentially a violation of former officials' First Amendment rights. Here's Timothy H. Edgar of Brown University talking to the Times:

"It [goes] too far to retroactively block former officials from citing news reports in the public domain, as long as they did so neutrally and did not confirm them as factually correct. That would amount to a prior restraint on former officials' First Amendment rights that they did not consent to, he said.

"'You're basically saying people can't talk about what everyone in the country is talking about," he said. "I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech.'"

The Obama administration's move, after Edward Snowden, to hermetically seal intelligence officials from the press is symptomatic of a larger trend within the administration, making it one of the least transparent in our history regarding "national security" issues.

And that lack of transparency relates directly to those actions -- surveillance, drone strikes, torture -- which themselves have legality and constitutionality issues (to put it mildly).

Now, the directives maintaining that lack of transparency themselves have questionable constitutional merit.

So much for transparency.

-- --

*David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.


 

articles reprinted from Dailykos.com

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Rush Limbaugh's Sponsor List

Comcast favors Fox News, charges $204 more for MSNBC package. ACTION NEEDED

Ron Paul takes lead In Iowa, Newt Gingrich falls off cliff

Busted: Scott Walker fell for Prankster posing as David Koch

The Bundy Ranch flashpoint, one Nevadan's perspective

Meet Foster Friess, Billionaire who Bought Iowa for Santorum

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments