SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Directive from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) makes mention of news reporting referencing unauthorized informatin, like that leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, a punishable offense. (Image credit: Laura Poitras)
Obama Directive Makes Mere Citing of Snowden Leaks Punishable Offense
Once promising the most transparent administration in history, White House reins in free speech of employees
May 09, 2014
In a new policy directive from the Obama administrative, national security and other government officials will no longer be allowed to publicly discuss or even reference news reporting that is based on "unauthorized leaks."
President Obama once promised the American people that his administration would be the most transparent in history, but after years of fights with civil libertarians trying to obtain legal memos used to justify the president's overseas assassination program, an unprecedented pattern of prosecuting government whistleblowers, the targeting of journalists, and all the secrecy and obfuscation related to the NSA's mass surviellance programs made public by Edward Snowden, that claim is now met with near universal laughter, if not scorn, by critics.
According to the New York Times:
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.
Such officials "must not use sourcing that comes from known leaks, or unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information," it says. "The use of such information in a publication can confirm the validity of an unauthorized disclosure and cause further harm to national security."
Failure to comply "may result in the imposition of civil and administrative penalties, and may result in the loss of security clearances and accesses," it says.
Timothy H. Edgar, a visiting professor at Brown University, told the Times the ODNI directive is overly restrictive because it goes beyond telling officials they cannot comment on or confirm the accuracy of unauthorized leaks--something he thinks makes sense and is already covered by statute--but it bizarrely asserts that these people cannot even acknowledge the existence of a story that may have appeared on the cover of a major newspaper.
"You're basically saying people can't talk about what everyone in the country is talking about," Edgar said. "I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech."
The new rule was first reported by journalist Steve Aftergood at the Secrecy News website on Thursday and relates to other rules that guide national security officials who are speak to the press or in public forums.
Referencing the Times reporting on the directive, the president's critics were focused on the continued hypocrisy between claims of transparency by the president and other high-level officials and the reality represented by the continued attempt to by the White House and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to control information:
\u201cThe Most Transparent Administration in History Strikes Again https://t.co/GMknQXwSp7\u201d— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf) 1399603412
\u201cThis (https://t.co/WMjeUfiQe9 ) was week before this (https://t.co/CprRGP41ZR). Did Clapper violate his own new authoritarian policy?\u201d— Kevin Gosztola (@Kevin Gosztola) 1399605535
\u201cNext thing you know, the government will tell State and DoD historians never to mention the Pentagon Papers when writing about Vietnam.\u201d— Tim Shorrock (@Tim Shorrock) 1399604434
______________________________________
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a new policy directive from the Obama administrative, national security and other government officials will no longer be allowed to publicly discuss or even reference news reporting that is based on "unauthorized leaks."
President Obama once promised the American people that his administration would be the most transparent in history, but after years of fights with civil libertarians trying to obtain legal memos used to justify the president's overseas assassination program, an unprecedented pattern of prosecuting government whistleblowers, the targeting of journalists, and all the secrecy and obfuscation related to the NSA's mass surviellance programs made public by Edward Snowden, that claim is now met with near universal laughter, if not scorn, by critics.
According to the New York Times:
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.
Such officials "must not use sourcing that comes from known leaks, or unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information," it says. "The use of such information in a publication can confirm the validity of an unauthorized disclosure and cause further harm to national security."
Failure to comply "may result in the imposition of civil and administrative penalties, and may result in the loss of security clearances and accesses," it says.
Timothy H. Edgar, a visiting professor at Brown University, told the Times the ODNI directive is overly restrictive because it goes beyond telling officials they cannot comment on or confirm the accuracy of unauthorized leaks--something he thinks makes sense and is already covered by statute--but it bizarrely asserts that these people cannot even acknowledge the existence of a story that may have appeared on the cover of a major newspaper.
"You're basically saying people can't talk about what everyone in the country is talking about," Edgar said. "I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech."
The new rule was first reported by journalist Steve Aftergood at the Secrecy News website on Thursday and relates to other rules that guide national security officials who are speak to the press or in public forums.
Referencing the Times reporting on the directive, the president's critics were focused on the continued hypocrisy between claims of transparency by the president and other high-level officials and the reality represented by the continued attempt to by the White House and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to control information:
\u201cThe Most Transparent Administration in History Strikes Again https://t.co/GMknQXwSp7\u201d— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf) 1399603412
\u201cThis (https://t.co/WMjeUfiQe9 ) was week before this (https://t.co/CprRGP41ZR). Did Clapper violate his own new authoritarian policy?\u201d— Kevin Gosztola (@Kevin Gosztola) 1399605535
\u201cNext thing you know, the government will tell State and DoD historians never to mention the Pentagon Papers when writing about Vietnam.\u201d— Tim Shorrock (@Tim Shorrock) 1399604434
______________________________________
In a new policy directive from the Obama administrative, national security and other government officials will no longer be allowed to publicly discuss or even reference news reporting that is based on "unauthorized leaks."
President Obama once promised the American people that his administration would be the most transparent in history, but after years of fights with civil libertarians trying to obtain legal memos used to justify the president's overseas assassination program, an unprecedented pattern of prosecuting government whistleblowers, the targeting of journalists, and all the secrecy and obfuscation related to the NSA's mass surviellance programs made public by Edward Snowden, that claim is now met with near universal laughter, if not scorn, by critics.
According to the New York Times:
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.
Such officials "must not use sourcing that comes from known leaks, or unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information," it says. "The use of such information in a publication can confirm the validity of an unauthorized disclosure and cause further harm to national security."
Failure to comply "may result in the imposition of civil and administrative penalties, and may result in the loss of security clearances and accesses," it says.
Timothy H. Edgar, a visiting professor at Brown University, told the Times the ODNI directive is overly restrictive because it goes beyond telling officials they cannot comment on or confirm the accuracy of unauthorized leaks--something he thinks makes sense and is already covered by statute--but it bizarrely asserts that these people cannot even acknowledge the existence of a story that may have appeared on the cover of a major newspaper.
"You're basically saying people can't talk about what everyone in the country is talking about," Edgar said. "I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech."
The new rule was first reported by journalist Steve Aftergood at the Secrecy News website on Thursday and relates to other rules that guide national security officials who are speak to the press or in public forums.
Referencing the Times reporting on the directive, the president's critics were focused on the continued hypocrisy between claims of transparency by the president and other high-level officials and the reality represented by the continued attempt to by the White House and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to control information:
\u201cThe Most Transparent Administration in History Strikes Again https://t.co/GMknQXwSp7\u201d— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf) 1399603412
\u201cThis (https://t.co/WMjeUfiQe9 ) was week before this (https://t.co/CprRGP41ZR). Did Clapper violate his own new authoritarian policy?\u201d— Kevin Gosztola (@Kevin Gosztola) 1399605535
\u201cNext thing you know, the government will tell State and DoD historians never to mention the Pentagon Papers when writing about Vietnam.\u201d— Tim Shorrock (@Tim Shorrock) 1399604434
______________________________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.