DOCSLIB.ORG

Biography of Director and Producer Robert Greenwald

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State A New Film by Robert Greenwald and Brave New Foundation Synopsis: War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State, the seventh full-length documentary from Robert Greenwald for Brave New Foundation, follows the stories of four courageous men compelled to expose acts of illegality and violations to the U.S. constitution during the explosion of the national security state under recent Presidential Administrations. Whistleblowers, Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm share their stories of sacrifice and prosecution by the brought on by the very government they swore to protect. The film also showcases journalists David Carr, Lucy Dalglish, Glenn Greenwald, Seymour Hersh, Michael Issikoff, Bill Keller, Eric Lipton, Jane Mayer, Dana Priest, Tom Vander Brook, and Sharon Weinberger who uncovered these stories, exposed the truth, and stood to defend the freedom of the press. Trailer for film: Waronwhilstleblowers.com Biography of Director and Producer Robert Greenwald: Robert Greenwald, founder and president of Brave New Films (BNF), is an award- winning television, feature film and documentary filmmaker. Notable credits include Steal This Movie, Breaking Up, Uncovered: The War on Iraq, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, Rethink Afghanistan, and Koch Brothers Exposed. His films have garnered 25 Emmy nominations. He has produced and/or directed more than 50 TV movies and miniseries. He turned to documentary filmmaking in 2002, inspired by pervasive voter rights abuses in the 2000 presidential election. He found audiences eager for substantive investigations of social issues and chose to bypass the usual gatekeepers by devising creative means of distribution, first through house parties, and ultimately through the internet and social media. Brave New Films documentaries have been viewed over 70 million times and have streamed in every continent. Greenwald is the recipient of a Maggie Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation, the Peacemaker Award from Physicians for Social Responsibility, the City of Justice award from LAANE, the Norman Felton and Denise Aubuchon Humanitarian Award, and Liberty Hill Foundation’s Upton Sinclair Award. He was honored by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California for his activism and also received the 2001 Peabody Award and the 2002 American Film Institute Producer of the Year award. www.bravenewfoundation.org Follow Robert Greenwald on Twitter: @robertgreenwald Biographies of those featured in the film: Whistleblowers: Michael DeKort: Senior Project Manager Michael DeKort was a Lockheed Martin project manager who posted a whistleblowing video on Youtube.com after he objected to what he felt were failures to meet contractual requirements of C4ISR systems onboard United States Coast Guard’s 123 Coast Guard Cutter retrofitted and updated under the Deepwater program. The boats retrofitted by the contractors failed to meet performance requirements and were deemed dangerous to operate by the United States Coast Guard. Before speaking publicly through his YouTube video, DeKort brought these issues to the attention of his immediate management and then up his chain of command to the highest executives in the company, including the CEO of Lockheed Martin and the Board of Directors. He went public with his YouTube account in 2006. His video gained a wide amount of exposure and it eventually led to a congressional hearing on the entire Deepwater project. As a result, the United States Coast Guard rejected the boats and demanded a refund of $96 million. The boats were decommissioned, taken out of service and engineer changes were made throughout the project. On the eve of trial, a settlement was reached regarding the “topside” electronic equipment defects. The U.S. Coast Guard took the program management away from the contractors, subsequently initiated their own suit and has pursued some of the contractors responsible for the buckled hulls. In 2008, DeKort received the Carl Barus Award for Outstanding Service in the Public Interest at the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. Thomas Drake: Former Senior Executive of the National Security Agency A former Senior Executive at the National Security Agency, Thomas Drake faced the gravest charges brought against an American citizen: prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917 which targeted him for exposing waste, fraud and abuse and illegality within the government as a whistleblower. He faced upwards of 35 years in prison. He was a key material witness for two 9/11 Congressional investigations and a Department of Defense Inspector General audit of NSA. Drake was one of several sources for articles written by Siobhan Gorman of the Baltimore Sun, which detailed a $1.2 billion boondoggle program called Trailblazer that the NSA wanted to create as a means of sifting through the vast electronic communications of the Digital Age for national security threats and an alternative program called Thinthread that not only provided superior intelligence, but also designed to fundamentally protect the 4th Amendment rights of US Persons under the Constitution. Drake said the Trailblazer program was inefficient, wasted billions in taxpayer dollars, was full of contractor pork and simply fraudulent compared to the highly innovative and ingenious Thinthread program that only cost $3 million to develop and was ready for use before 9/11. In addition, www.bravenewfoundation.org Drake also exposed the Stellar Wind program, a super-secret warrantless surveillance program approved by the White House that violated Americans’ privacy rights. Drake was never accused of spying but was accused of having allegedly classified documents in his basement for the purpose of disclosure. In a major embarrassment for the Department of Justice, the criminal case against him collapsed in June of 2011 on the eve of his public trial in a minor misdemeanor plea deal, where the government dropped all 10 felony counts against him. Drake was awarded the Ridenhour Truth-Telling Prize in 2011 and the 2012 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award with Jesselyn Radack from the Government Accountability Project. Daniel Ellsberg Former Official of the State and Defense Departments Daniel Ellsberg worked as a United States military analyst and is most widely recognized for his role of releasing “The Pentagon Papers”, a highly confidential study of decisions made and carried out during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg began work on the Pentagon papers in 1967, aided by his open access from a high security clearance he gained after serving in Vietnam and having been employed by the RAND Corporation. The Pentagon Papers contained documents, including secretly photocopied items, which were strictly classified. These documents revealed that the Johnson Administration deceived the general public by grossly underestimating the ability to win the Vietnam War and the vast casualties that would result from it. In 1971, the New York Times began publishing the papers and even when he was restricted by the government, Ellsberg leaked the papers to other newspapers and media. Ellsberg remains politically active and stands by the notion that the President, and more largely the government, lies to the public on a daily basis. Today he is a member of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and appears regularly in the media public political forums. Franz Gayl Deputy Branch Head for the Space and Information Operations Integration Branch While working at the Pentagon as a science advisor for the Marine Corps, Gayl - himself a Marine - volunteered to deploy to Iraq. Upon his return he alerted the office of the Secretary of Defense, and later the Congress and the media, to critical equipment shortages. These included Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs), ground and air battlefield surveillance systems, and 'directed energy' non-lethal weapons. Gayl’s public outcry exposed the fact that the Corps had failed to provide Marines in Iraq with live saving technologies. Most notable was the Corps' failure to fulfill a request for the mass fielding of MRAPs, that effectively protect troops against the improvised explosive devices that caused over 60% of causalities in Iraq. Gayl maintained that had MRAPs been available to troops when they were requested countless deaths and casualties could have prevented. In fact former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accredited MRAPs with saving "thousands of lives," and VP Biden has acknowledged Gayl’s central role in raising the visibility of their need through his whistleblowing. Yet, Gayl has been the target of years of retaliatory investigations and workplace harassment, including the elimination of meaningful duties and the extended suspension of his security clearances. www.bravenewfoundation.org Thomas Tamm Criminal Defense Litigation Attorney A former attorney to the United States Department of Justice, Tamm has been classified as a whistleblower when he uncovered warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) under the Bush Administration. He was one of the anonymous sources for The New York Times reporters, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau in their 2005 article, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” which gained attention by the Bush administration and led to a criminal investigation. Tamm eventually told his full story to Newsweek’s, Michael Isikoff in 2008. For his whistleblowing,
Recommended publications
  • Assange Case: U.S. Espionage Act Is Illegal, Says John Kiriakou

    Assange Case: U.S. Espionage Act Is Illegal, Says John Kiriakou

    Assange Case: U.S. Espionage Act Is Illegal, Says John Kiriakou By Edu Montesanti and John Kiriakou Region: USA Global Research, December 05, 2018 Theme: Law and Justice, Media Disinformation While Ecuador is expected to extradite Assange to the US,John Kiriakou, a “reluctant whistleblower” considered the first US intelligence officer to reveal information about the American intelligence community’s use of torture techniques, comments the WikiLeaks’ founder case in the following talk with renowned journalist Edu Montesanti. “The only thing that can saveJulian Assange is jury nullification,” says whistleblowerJohn Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee based in Virginia, in an exclusive talk to this reporter. ** U.S. Justice Department is acting behind the scenes to have Assange extradited from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, and prosecuted in the U.S. Criminal charges against WikiLeaks’ founder were accidentally revealed in early November, when Assange’s name was found on the court filing of an unrelated case, suggesting that prosecutors had copied a boilerplate text and forgotten to change the defendant’s name. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer, urging a judge to keep the matter sealed, wrote that “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” Later, Dwyer wrote the charges would “need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.” It is much likely that the Australian journalist, who in March 2017 released an archive of documents detailing the C.I.A.’s hacking operations known as theVault 7 leak, is being accused by American prosecutors of violating the 1917 Espionage Act.
  • The American Experience with Diplomacy and Military Restraint I

    The American Experience with Diplomacy and Military Restraint I

    PART I: THE AmERICAN EXPERIENCE WITH DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY RESTRAINT i. Orphaned Diplomats: The American Struggle to Match Diplomacy with Power Jeremi Suri E. Gordon Fox Professor of History and Director, European Union Center of Excellence, University of Wisconsin, Madison Benjamin Franklin spent the American Revolution in Paris. He had helped to draft the Declaration of Independence in the summer of 1776, one of the most radical documents of the eighteenth century—sparking rebellion on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Serving as a representative for the Continental Congress in France during the next decade, Franklin became a celebrity. He was the enlightened idealist from the frontier, the man of principled action who enthralled onlookers in the rigid European class societies of the 1770s and ’80s. Franklin embodied the American critique of Old World society, economy, and diplomacy. He was one of many American revolutionaries to take aim at the degenerate world of powdered wigs, fancy uniforms, and silver-service dinners where the great men of Europe decided the fate of distant societies. Franklin was a representative of the enduring American urge to replace the diplomacy of aristocrats with the openness and freedom of democrats.1 Despite his radical criticisms of aristocracy, Franklin was also a prominent participant in Parisian salons. To the consternation of John Adams and John Jay, he dined most evenings with the most conservative elements of French high society. Unlike Adams, he did not refuse to dress the part. For all his frontiers- man claims, Franklin relished high-society silver-service meals, especially if generous portions of wine were available for the guests.
  • Self-Censorship and the First Amendment Robert A

    Self-Censorship and the First Amendment Robert A

    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 25 Article 2 Issue 1 Symposium on Censorship & the Media 1-1-2012 Self-Censorship and the First Amendment Robert A. Sedler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Robert A. Sedler, Self-Censorship and the First Amendment, 25 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 13 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol25/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES SELF-CENSORSHIP AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ROBERT A. SEDLER* I. INTRODUCTION Self-censorship refers to the decision by an individual or group to refrain from speaking and to the decision by a media organization to refrain from publishing information. Whenever an individual or group or the media engages in self-censorship, the values of the First Amendment are compromised, because the public is denied information or ideas.' It should not be sur- prising, therefore, that the principles, doctrines, and precedents of what I refer to as "the law of the First Amendment"' are designed to prevent self-censorship premised on fear of govern- mental sanctions against expression. This fear-induced self-cen- sorship will here be called "self-censorship bad." At the same time, the First Amendment also values and pro- tects a right to silence.
  • Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition

    Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition

    Presents: Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition A film by Robert Greenwald (56 min., USA, 2013) Language: English Publicity: Linsey Pecikonis Brave New Films Tel: 310-204-0448x225 E-mail: [email protected] High-resolution film stills may be downloaded at http://www.bravenewfilms.org/koch_presskit ABOUT THE FILM In early 2011, Robert Greenwald and the Brave New Films (BNF) staff questioned how to make ordinary Americans care about the activities of David and Charles Koch, billionaire brothers who were spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence federal, state and local elections. The Koch brothers were not yet in the daily conversations of the average American, but that would change with the 2012 release of BNF’s investigative documentary Koch Brothers Exposed. Originally Greenwald envisioned Koch Brothers Exposed as a series of thirteen short investigative videos that shed light on the Koch political dealings and the negative impact their money has on a variety of aspects of American life. These mini-documentaries immediately went viral, and viewers made it clear to BNF that they wanted more comprehensive coverage of the Koch’s activities. The first edition of the hour-long Koch Brothers Exposed highlighted the Koch’s efforts to gut Social Security by spending more than $28 million to popularize the fiction that the federal program was on the brink of collapse. It also addressed the Koch’s attempts at re-segregating schools in North Carolina; their efforts at voter suppression by supporting misleading voter ID laws; and the disastrous impact of their environmental policies on oil and gas projects and on industrial toxic waste.
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes

    The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes

    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
  • WHISTLEBLOWERS and LEAKERS NEWSLETTER, Series 2, #4, October 3, 2019

    WHISTLEBLOWERS and LEAKERS NEWSLETTER, Series 2, #4, October 3, 2019

    -- OMNI WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS NEWSLETTER, Series 2, #4, October 3, 2019. https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2019/10/whistleblowers-and-leakers- newsletter-4.html Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology http://omnicenter.org/donate/ Series 2 #1 May 18, 2015 http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2015/05/whistleblowers-and-leakers- newsletter.html #2 Aug. 6, 2016 http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2016/08/whistleblowers-and-leakers- newsletter.html #3 Dec. 13, 2018 https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2018/12/whistleblower-newsletter-series-2- 3.html CONTENTS: WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS NEWSLETTER, Series 2, #4, October 3, 2019. Reporting in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Whistleblower, the Newsletter of Government Accountability Project Bravehearts by Mark Hertsgaard Snowden’s New Book, Permanent Record Jesselyn Radack’s memoir Traitor: The Whistleblower and the American Taliban Whistleblowers Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou Army Reserve Captain, Brittany Ramos Debarros Film: War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State TEXTS RECENT ARTICLES IN THE NADG. I can’t compare its reporting of wb and leakers to that of other newspapers, but it is reporting these heroes of truth and democracy, and very well it appears at least at this tense moment in time. Here are examples I have gathered recently (and have in a file) in reverse chronological order. Julian Barnes, et al. (NYT). “Whistleblower Said to Seek Advice Early.” 10-3-19. Hoyt Purvis. “Whistle-blower Claims Demand Gutsy Response.” 10-2-19. Plante. (Tulsa World, Editorial Cartoon). “Save the American Whistleblower.” 10-1-19. D-G Staff. “Schiff: Panel Will Hear from Whistleblower.” 9-30-19.
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public

    \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public

    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
  • Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa Catherine M

    Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa Catherine M

    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 20 | Issue 4 Article 4 8-1-1993 Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa Catherine M. Coles Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Land Use Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Coles, Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa, 20 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 699 (1993), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol20/iss4/4 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAND REFORM FOR POST-APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA Catherine M. Coles* I. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 700 II. LAND SYSTEMS IN COLLISION: PRECOLONIAL AND COLONIAL LAND SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AFRICA. 703 A. An Overview of Precolonial Land Systems. 703 B. Changing Rights to Landfor Indigenous South African Peoples Under European Rule. 706 III. THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF RACIAL INEQUALITY AND APART- HEID THROUGH A LAND PROGRAM. 711 A. Legislative Development of the Apartheid Land Program. 712 B. The Apartheid System of Racial Zoning in Practice: Limiting the Land Rights of Black South Africans. 716 1. Homelands and National States: Limiting Black Access to Land by Restricting Citizenship. 716 2. Restricting Black Land Rights in Rural Areas Outside the Homelands through State Control. 720 3. Restricting Black Access to Urban Land..................... 721 IV. DISMANTLING APARTHEID: THE NATIONAL PARTY'S PLAN FOR LAND REFORM............................................................
  • Democracy Now!: What the Prosecution of NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Is Really About 27.12.16 18:18

    Democracy Now!: What the Prosecution of NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Is Really About 27.12.16 18:18

    Democracy Now!: What the Prosecution of NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake is Really About 27.12.16 18:18 Buchen Sie hier Ihr Flugerlebnis! flyipilot.de JESSELYN RADACK (/BLOGS/JESSELYN-RADACK) Blog (/blogs/Jesselyn-Radack) Stream (/user/Jesselyn Radack/stream) Democracy Now!: What the Prosecution of NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake is Really About (/stories/2011/5/18/977111/- ) By Jesselyn Radack (/user/Jesselyn%20Radack) Wednesday May 18, 2011 · 5:06 PM CEST 8 Comments (8 New) (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/5/18/977111/-#comments) ! 25 " 0 # (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2011%2F5%2F18%2F977111%2F- &text=Democracy+Now%21%3A+What+the+Prosecution+of+NSA+Whistleblower+Thomas+Drake+is+Really+About) $ RSS I was just on Democracy Now! (/user/Jesselyn (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/18/inside_obamas_orw RECOMMENDED LIST % (/USER/RECOMMENDED/HISTORY) Radack/rss.xml) ellian_world_where_whistleblowing) discussing the prosecution of whistleblower Thomas Drake, who used to be a senior Message to my Trump-supporting Facebook executive at the National Security Agency (NSA). I'm glad friends (/stories/2016/12/26/1614776/-Message-to- TAGS people are finally paying attention to this case, thanks to Jane my-Trump-supporting-Facebook-friends) Mayer's explosive cover story in the New Yorker ! 232 & 146 (/stories/2016/12/26/1614776/-Message-to-my-Trump-supporting-Facebook-friends) #Democracy Now Mommadoc (/user/Mommadoc) (/news/Democracy (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fa Now) ct_mayer),
  • A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers

    A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers

    A Public Accountability Defense For National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Yochai Benkler, A Public Accountability Defense For National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers, 8 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 281 (2014). Published Version http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hlpr/files/2014/08/ HLP203.pdf Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12786017 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers Yochai Benkler* In June 2013 Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Barton Gellman be- gan to publish stories in The Guardian and The Washington Post based on arguably the most significant national security leak in American history.1 By leaking a large cache of classified documents to these reporters, Edward Snowden launched the most extensive public reassessment of surveillance practices by the American security establishment since the mid-1970s.2 Within six months, nineteen bills had been introduced in Congress to sub- stantially reform the National Security Agency’s (“NSA”) bulk collection program and its oversight process;3 a federal judge had held that one of the major disclosed programs violated the
  • May 4, 2012 VIA REGULAR MAIL A.T. Smith Deputy Director U.S. Secret

    May 4, 2012 VIA REGULAR MAIL A.T. Smith Deputy Director U.S. Secret

    May 4, 2012 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100 Arlington, Va. 22209-2211 VIA REGULAR MAIL (703) 807-2100 www.rcfp.org A.T. Smith Lucy A. Dalglish Executive Director Deputy Director U.S. Secret Service STEERING COMMITTEE Communications Center SCOTT APPLEWHITE 245 Murray Lane, S.W. The Associated Press WOLF BLITZER Building T-5 CNN Washington, D.C. 20223 DAVID BOARDMAN Seattle Times CHIP BOK Creators Syndicate Freedom of Information Act Appeal ERIKA BOLSTAD Expedited Processing Requested for File Nos. 20120546-20120559 McClatchy Newspapers JESS BRAVIN The Wall Street Journal MICHAEL DUFFY Time Dear Mr. Smith: RICHARD S. DUNHAM Houston Chronicle This is an appeal of a denial of expedited processing under the Freedom of ASHLEA EBELING Forbes Magazine Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i)(I) (“FOIA”), and 6 C.F.R., FRED GRAHAM InSession Chapter 1, Part 5 § 5.5. On March 27, 2012, I made a FOIA request to the JOHN C. HENRY Department of Homeland Security for expedited processing of the following: Freelance NAT HENTOFF United Media Newspaper Syndicate 1. Perfected, pending FOIA request letters submitted to your office on DAHLIA LITHWICK Slate the dates provided below, which were listed on the Securities and Exchange TONY MAURO Commission’s 2011 Annual FOIA report as being included in the “10 Oldest National Law Journal Pending Perfected FOIA Requests:”1 DOYLE MCMANUS Los Angeles Times 11/30/2005 ANDREA MITCHELL NBC News 12/2/2005 MAGGIE MULVIHILL 12/2/2005 New England Center for Investigative Reporting BILL NICHOLS 1/19/2006 Politico SANDRA PEDDIE 1/19/2006 Newsday 1/19/2006 DANA PRIEST The Washington Post 1/19/2006 DAN RATHER HD Net 2.
  • In the United States Court of Appeals

    In the United States Court of Appeals

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x : : CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL : RIGHTS, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : : v. : Civil Action No. 13-1504 : : CHIEF JUDGE COL. DENISE LIND, : et al., : : Defendants. : : : –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x PROPOSED BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND 35 NEWS MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INDEX TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................................. v INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 1 ARGUMENT I. The First Amendment and this circuit’s jurisprudence affirm a right of public access to judicial documents in courts-martial... ................................................. 6 A. It is well established that open judicial proceedings provide accountability and oversight. ............................................................................................... 7 B. The interest in open proceedings extends to courts-martial documents and dockets. ........................................................................................................ 11 C. The public policy implications of secrecy highlight the importance of a constitutional right of access to courts-martial documents. ........................ 16 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................