Medium: In 2013, you wrote a book about your experiences leading the New York Times’s legal defense in the Pentagon Papers case, and you prefaced the book with a warning to the public about the dangers of the Justice Department prosecuting WikiLeaks. What was the reaction at the time?
James Goodale: When I wrote the book pointing out the dangers to the First Amendment if Assange was prosecuted, I made it my business to see if I could gin up support within the media/press community to stick up for his rights, since his rights would affect everyone else’s. I had occasion to speak to many groups in connection with the promotion of my book. Every time I mentioned the fact that establishment press should advocate for Assange’s rights, I heard hoots of laughter or people shouting at me that I didn’t understand the journalism profession.
I was dismayed that I got very few converts in the journalistic community that would take my position that it was necessary to support Assange — not for Assange himself, but for the First Amendment.
To that point, you don’t need to like Assange — or you could even actively hate him — to support his First Amendment rights and realize the danger prosecution poses to all journalists, or journalists at the New York Times, for example.
At the time, the facts concerning Assange with respect to publication of material that he made with the New York Times, Guardian, etc, presented a classic First Amendment case of someone who was very unpopular, disliked, but nonetheless has First Amendment rights. It’s classic First Amendment theory that you separate the First Amendment from the personality and the activities and rights of the person you’re defending.
Right now, we know Assange has been secretly charged by the Justice Department, but we don’t know the charges. Do you see any difference in the facts of the last couple of years — if you compare the publication of the hacked DNC emails vs. the publication of the Manning files or other publications of classified material — as far as First Amendment protections?
I see no difference in terms of First Amendment protection in terms of what he published, whether Assange is publishing hacked DNC emails or material leaked to him concerning activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The information in the DNC emails was certainly embarrassing at the time of an election. The timing is very unfortunate from the Democrat’s point of view and it’s obvious why many people were upset. But from the First Amendment point of view, the publication of stolen materials, as long as the publisher did not actively participate in the actual theft, is still protected activity under the Constitution.
We need to stand up for Julian Assange because it's the right thing to do. We also need to stand up for him because it's the only way to keep a free press. Strange, isn't it, how hacktress Meryl Streep pretends to care about a free press but will say nothing to defend Julian Assange. Telling.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
The problem that never goes away.
Remember when it first surfaced? We were at the first House hearing, check the archives, and remember the member of the Committee who blamed the veterans? She's not on the Committee any more. She's behind bars. In prison. Probably still wearing a really ugly wig. Corrine Brown. She attacked the veterans over and over in hearing after hearing whenever the VA made a mistake. She couldn't call out the VA (not when Barack was president). And as if that's not bad enough, what happened next? Nancy Pelosi made Corrine Ranking Member on the Committee.
The woman couldn't speak coherently. She attacked veterans -- which is why all the Veterans Service Organizations backed Tim Walz and not Corrine for the post. But that's who Nancy wanted. And Nancy got her way. For a little bit. Corrine's a convicted felon.
Nancy's judgment has always been questionable and it remains so.
All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests. Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
The idea that Ms Pelosi is not beholden to and a defender of corporate interests is laughable. I understand not wanting to give up a perceived advantage. But if you don’t reform the party now,you never will. And it won’t matter which D is speaker.
You’re right. I think that putting her back in there is little different than putting any 1980 Republican in same spot. Speaker determines what liberal direction + issues will even be discussed.
Glad AOC proving a savvier politician than is NEVER the feeds on chaos & burning it all down disorganized left. AOC wise 2push 4change where she can, like by calling4 climate change SC rather than ousting competent Speaker n favor of the nothing out there 2take Pelosi's place.
I didn't say she wasn't competent. I am saying she is corrupt and feckless and I want her gone. Understand the difference?
Who would you like to see take her place?
Not my problem to find someone to replace her. That's a straw man, but u may be asking sincerely. We all the time under the law convict criminals and 'who will replace this man and take care of his family'? isn't a consideration for the court. Why should this be different?
B/c you don't have any realistic solutions, then u shouldn't even have suggested that AOC shouldn't vote in favor of putting Pelosi back into the Speakership.
That makes no sense at all. So if the court in my analogy doesn't replace the rapists income and make sure they provide a solution, then they should just shut up and let him proceed with his life. Your argument is not logical.
You're analogy doesn't work here. Either Nancy Pelosi or someone else is going to be Speaker. What's your solution? At this time the challenges are coming from the right (the #fivewhiteguys). AOC either dissent in their favor or vote for Pelosi. Those are the only options.
And your suggestion that Pelosi is "criminal"--"corrupt" & "feckless" is opinion--not a verdict. The black caucus, including beloved liberal Brenda Lee, is all in for Nancy Pelosi, to whom they never refer as "criminal", "feckless" or "corrupt".
Keep trying. You refuse to address my logic analogy so you must not have much. Explain to me why Pelosi took any investigation of the Bush cabal Iraq fiasco off the table - torture, theft, corruption, war, murder et al? We have a rule of law and she failed. For that alone ….
I knew you were going to take this route because you have no solutions to the speaker problem.
And you keep deflecting and ignoring my points. What if she died tomorrow? If she is the ONLY person who can fill that position they are in even worse shape than I believe. Any party that is that reliant on one person ….
Ur the1 who has no solution4 replacing Pelosi. Suggested WaPo reading: "Dont blow it Democrats; there's only1 choice 4Speaker", authored by 08 "progressive" who had no intention of voting 4Pelosi & what changed her mind. And why she thinks we shld keep Pelosi til Trump is out.
You just don't get I don't have to provide you a solution. The caucus needs to provide the speaker. They have to provide the solution. No different than candidates. They decide. You can propose if you want. I can say whether they meet my standards, same as you. Yes or no. Period.
The notion that it's Nancy or no one is laughable. She did a lousy job as Speaker from 2007 through the start of 2011. Seven years later, she's going to be re-installed and people act like it's normal. No, it's not. When you suffer the defeat the Dems did in the mid-terms of 2010, you don't go back to leadership. You're eased out. But because she brings in the big bucks, she gets to remain.
Nancy has accomplished nothing. She was always a poor communicator but that's only gotten worse as she's gotten older. It's time for new blood. That doesn't mean a freshman member of the House. There are many qualified members who could be Speaker.
Nancy became speaker in 2007 on her promise to get US troops out of Iraq. That never happened.
They remain in Iraq to this day.
Will she become Speaker? Probably. She got rid of a rival for leadership a few years back by blackmailing him with photos of him and underage boys drinking and partying. Nancy always knows how to win -- dirty. The people supporting her are supporting corruption. Granted, most are knee-jerk supporting her (Cher) because Nancy's a woman. But as far as history will be concerned, it will be Nancy's power plays and blackmail that she's remembered for, not her gender.
In Iraq, protests resume in Basra City. President of Basra Tribal Council: nothing has changed, still no jobs & dirty water. Protests will spread throughout the province. If security forces use violence, we will take decisive action. mobp.as/uzzNn
Nothing has changed in Basra. The protests started in July.
It's now November.
Over 100,000 people have been sent to the hospital for drinking the water in Basra. Even that's not been fixed. All around the world, politicians pocket money and refuse to serve the people they are supposed to represent.
On the topic of lawmakers, ALBAWABA offered:
Iraq’s parliament will vote on Tuesday to approve the remaining eight ministers in Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s government.
The process is not expected to go smoothly after the Sunni National Axis Alliance, allied with the Binaa bloc, threatened to obstruct any vote on the Defense Ministry portfolio, which 28 nominees are vying for.
Ahmed al-Jabouri, a leader in the National Axis Alliance and a deputy at the Legal Affairs parliament committee, told Asharq Al-Awsat Monday that the bloc must have power over choosing the next defense minister because it represents Sunnis in the country. He cited how other blocs submitted candidates based on their representation of the Iraqi people.
The actual wording, for the above to have been a news report, should have been "Iraq's parliament is scheduled to vote . . ." That's reporting. "Will vote"? That's predicting.
And guess what? They got their prediction wrong.
There was no vote today. MIDDLE EAST ONLINE reports:
Iraq's parliament will vote next week on whether to approve the remaining eight candidates for Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi's cabinet, the speaker's office said on Monday.
The session initially scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 27, was delayed late on Monday night by one week.
Lawmakers last month confirmed only 14 out of the 22 ministers Abdul Mahdi initially presented, but nevertheless approved a confidence motion, allowing him to become prime minister.
Eight ministries, including the vital defence and interior portfolios, remain vacant. Parliament initially said it would vote on the remaining ministers earlier this month but the vote was delayed due to disagreements over nominees.
Adel Abdul al-Mahdi still can't form a government. Maybe he needs to follow through on his threat earlier this month and just resign?
Iraq's suffering and he can't even get a Minister of Defense confirmed?
Iraq's Sadr calls on prime minister to finalize cabinet aane.ws/3HN
Meanwhile the flooding in northern Iraq continues to claim lives.
The following community sites -- plus BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated: