It's distastful being on the same side of an issue as Michael Moore. On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The reason I'm helping Chris Hedges' lawsuit against the NDAAJ > > > I have discussed the terms of the Homeland Battlefield Bill also known as > the National Defense Authorization Act with numerous other journalists, > writers, and members of democracy-supporting organizations across the > political spectrum, from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee to the Tenth > Amendment Center. I have also discussed the bill with various political > leaders, including city council members and legislators, who span the > political spectrum in the United States. They all agree that the bill can > potentially affect an American journalist who meets with and publishes > reports on individuals connected to organizations deemed terrorist by the > United States government. > > To state the obvious, I do not support terrorism or any terrorist groups. I > do not believe acts of violence against civilian populations are an > appropriate way to achieve political, or any other change. I have never > supported or condoned the actions of any terrorist organization. > > > I do, however, believe that a properly functioning media should report on > newsworthy items, including discussions with and beliefs professed by > various groups, including persons whom the United States government has > labeled as terrorists. I believe part of my job involves meeting with, > discussing ideas with, and publishing stories about persons and groups who > have, or are under threat of being, labeled a terrorist or terrorist group. > > > My understanding of the bill, however, has forced me to decline to meet > with certain newsworthy individuals, and groups of people, for fear that my > communications with them and publishing articles on these individuals could > be considered to be providing material support to a terrorist or terrorist > organization. I have forgone meeting with individuals, and reporting on > facts and stories, that I otherwise believe are newsworthy, and contribute > to a healthy national discourse for no other reason than to avoid > potential repercussions under the bill. > > > I wish to highlight several instances of my having had to decline to meet > with individuals in situations in which, under the normal conditions of my > profession, meeting them, and potentially interviewing them, would have led > to investigative articles for publication that I believe would have served > the public interest. > > In November 2011, I declined, in writing, a proposed meeting with Vaughan > Smith and Julian Assange, because of statements made by high-level United > States officials regarding their belief that Assange is a terrorist, as > well as the ongoing Department of Justice investigation, which, as I > understand it, could lead to terrorism and/or espionage charges against > him. I have declined to meet directly with members of Occupy Wall Street, > because that group is being threatened with being named as terrorists in > Miami. As a result, I have ceased conducting one-on-one interviews with > them. > > > I have declined, in writing, to follow up with a proposed meeting with a > support group in London that serves former prisoners, released without > charge by the US government from the US detention center atGuantánamo Bay. > Because some of these prisoners were released without government > determination of whether they were connected to a terrorist organization, I > declined to meet with this group for fear that this story could conceivably > be considered some form of support to a group affiliated with terrorists. > > > I declined, in writing, to give additional media attention to a reporter > who produced a documentary based on the bombardment of Gaza, and its effect > on the Palestinian civilian population. Since I did not know who else, or > which other entities, may have contributed to its production, I was > concerned that my shining a media spotlight on the film, and gathering > other members of the press to see it, might lead to wider attention and > further fundraising that could conceivably fall under the term "material > support". > > > Thus the Homeland Battlefield Bill has already a chilling effect upon my > ability to investigate and document matters of national controversy that > would ordinarily be subject to my professional inquiry. It has therefore > prevented my readers from receiving the full spectrum of truthful reporting > which, in a functioning democracy, they have a right to expect. > > > This article is based on an affidavit in support of journalist Chris > Hedges' lawsuit against Barack Obama and Leon Panetta, regarding the > National Defense Authorization Act. Other plaintiffs in the case include > Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/28/helping-chris-hedges-lawsuit-ndaa > > J > > - > > As we've learned what the President thinks of Abdulelah Haider Shaye, the > brave journalist who reported about the remains of the missiles he found > that were clearly marked 'Made in the USA' and among the dead were 14 women > and 21 children, being identified as a terrorist isn't a good thing. He's > now accused of being an al-Qaeda operative and has been locked up in Yemen > ever since. I guess Naomi Wolf doesn't want to end up this way... ( > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/abdulelah-haider-shaye-yemen-journalist_n_1348354.htm > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:349257 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
