Categories
Courage News News

Journalist Chris Hedges joins Courage Advisory Board

The Courage Foundation’s Advisory Board, already comprising whistleblowers, tech experts, scholars, and activists, continues to grow. Earlier this week we announced Slavoj Žižek joined our board, and today we are excited to welcome Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges aboard.

Hedges, a former war correspondent for the New York Times, now writes a column for Truthdig, where he covers various topics surrounding threats to our civil liberties and champions those fighting against those threats.

In a debate about Edward Snowden’s actions, Hedges said, “If there are no Snowdens, if there are no Mannings, if there are no Assanges, there will be no free press.”

In February, Hedges wrote ‘Edward Snowden’s Moral Courage,’ a speech praising the NSA whistleblower’s conscientious efforts, and expanding on why we need whistleblowers if we want a free press:

There is no free press without the ability of the reporters to protect the confidentiality of those who have the moral courage to make public the abuse of power. Those few individuals inside government who dared to speak out about the system of mass surveillance have been charged as spies or hounded into exile. An omnipresent surveillance state—and I covered the East German Stasi state—creates a climate of paranoia and fear. It makes democratic dissent impossible. Any state that has the ability to inflict full-spectrum dominance on its citizens is not a free state.

In 2013, Hedges lauded Courage beneficiary Jeremy Hammond for exposing the state’s plan to criminalise democratic dissent. He attended and reported on Hammond’s sentencing, which he called “draconian.”

Earlier that year, Hedges attended and reported on Chelsea Manning’s trial, and wrote in solidarity of the US Army whistleblower here and condemned the “judicial lynching” of Manning here.

Categories
News Whistleblowing

Swiss banking’s whistleblowers: the regulators of last resort

Swiss banks’ history of absolute confidentiality for their clients has led to the small country becoming the world’s largest centre for private banking. That secrecy is backed up by national laws: if Swiss bank employees disclose details they come across professionally, they don’t just risk losing their job — they face prison.

International initiatives to combat money laundering and tax evasion have put increasing pressure on Switzerland to break with the past and adopt greater transparency and better reporting standards. The Swiss resistance to surrendering their competitive advantage is reflected by the treatment meted out to whistleblowers from the banking sector, who – as the Economist reports this week –  have been fiercely persecuted.

Last summer Pierre Condamin-Gerbier, a former Geneva-based private banker, revealed that French budget minister and tax tsar, JĂŠrĂ´me Cahuzac, had hidden €600,000 in a Swiss bank account for over 20 years, despite repeatedly denying ever holding a bank account abroad. The revelation led to Cahuzac’s resignation and expulsion from France’s Socialist Party. Whistleblower Gerbier  was arrested on his return to Switzerland, released on bail in September last year and has recently appeared before a Swiss prosecutor.

This follows an extraordinary decade of retaliation against whistleblower Rudolf Elmer, a former executive with Bank Julius Baer based in the Cayman Islands, who raised concerns internally before turning to authorities and finally WikiLeaks to expose alleged complicity with tax avoidance and money laundering. Elmer and his family suffered extended close surveillance, intimidation and harassment (for which Julius Baer has already paid an undisclosed out of court settlement). Elmer has been imprisoned twice without charge, once for 187 days and once for 30 days, with periods in solitary confinement.

Rudolf Elmer, Julius Baer whistleblower
Rudolf Elmer, Julius Baer whistleblower

Swiss disclosure to international tax authorities is gradually inching forward. In October last year, Switzerland signed the OECD Multilateral Convention – an agreement to exchange information about taxpayers between tax authorities on request. But while the Swiss government has signed on to the Convention, it has failed to do anything to improve the situation of the whistleblowing bankers who have done so much do demonstrate why international agreements were needed. Secrecy laws remain in place and, as the case of Pierre Condamin-Gerbier shows, drawn out criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention for whistleblowers continue.

Whistleblower protections in Switzerland would serve the public interest more effectively than the decade-long trial Rudolf Elmer has had to suffer.

Categories
Journalism Legislation News

UK watchdog warns that terrorism laws threaten journalists and sources

The UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said that the British government is drawing its interpretation of ‘terrorism’ too broadly, telling the BBC that the current definition “has begun to catch people it was never really intended to catch.”

gm

In a report delivered to Parliament on 22 July 2014, Anderson expressed particular concern about the possibility of journalists and bloggers having their activities made a subject of UK terrorism laws. The case of David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, who was stopped at Heathrow airport for 9 hours in August 2013 and had his electronic equipment seized by UK police brought this issue into sharp focus. The action of UK border police was upheld by the High Court in London on 19 February 2014.

In particular, Anderson points out that the UK does not require a link to acts of violence in the way it defines terrorism, only an intent to “influence the government.”

What the Miranda judgment reveals is that the publication (or threatened publication) of words may equally constitute terrorist action. It seems that the writing of a book, an article or a blog may therefore amount to terrorism if publication is “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”, “designed to influence the government” and liable to endanger life or create a serious risk to health or safety.

As Anderson argues, the UK’s statutory definition of terrorism is broad enough that a blogger arguing against the vaccination of children on political or religious grounds could theoretically fall within its bounds if their actions were judged to present a serious risk to public health. Under ancilliary laws, a large swath of speech acts – including the possession of articles for a purpose connected with publication, acts preparatory to publication or even the encouragement of such acts of publication – could also be construed as offences.

The degree of discretion this “over broad” definition allows executive authorities, concludes Anderson “leaves citizens in the dark and risks undermining the rule of law,” weakens public support for terrorism legislation generally and threatens to chill “legitimate enquiry and expression” by introducing the possibility of arbitrary prosecution.

David Miranda’s appeal is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal later this year.

Categories
Edward Snowden Journalism Legislation News

Australia’s new law would criminalise Snowden reporting

Australian attorney general George Brandis has introduced an amendment to National Security Bill 2014, which he says will criminalise the removal of intelligence information from an agency but is written so broadly that it can potentially be used to punish journalists for publishing or reporting on intelligence information they discover or receive.

As the Guardian reports, according to the Bill’s explanatory memorandum, it criminalises “disclosures by any person, including participants in an SIO [special intelligence operation], other persons to whom information about an SIO has been communicated in an official capacity, and persons who are the recipients of an unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure”.

This last clause effectively makes journalism — publishing and reporting on secret government documents — a crime.

The new Bill is in line with an ongoing crackdown on whistleblowing and subsequently on the journalism it enables, in the spirit of the US government’s persecution and ongoing investigation of WikiLeaks for publishing Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and State Department cables. In the US trial of Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, military prosecutors avowed that they would have tried Manning the same way had she passed the documents to the New York Times rather than WikiLeaks.

It also recalls the abusively broad language of the 1917 Espionage Act, a conviction of which requires merely “potential” harm — no proof of actual damage caused is needed. As Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg writes, reversing Manning’s 35-year prison sentence and conviction on multiple Espionage Act counts is America’s best shot at ending the government’s use of the law to imprison truthtellers.

The Espionage Act carries a ten-year prison term, and Australia’s new bill does as well, making it a crime to “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.” This language hypes fears of national security damage without any factual backing. Snowden-released documents have been published, excerpted from and reported on for more than a year, and American officials have been unable to point to any tangible harm as a result.

Rather than learn from this lack of damage that these documents needn’t have been classified in the first place, Brandis is moving in the opposite direction, stoking fears in an effort to dissuade whistleblowing and, more broadly, Australian journalism.

Categories
Journalism News

How journalists should work with whistleblowers

The International Journalism Festival 2014 hosted a panel discussion titled Thanks Mr Snowden! The Scoop of the Century, with MI5 whistleblower and Courage Advisory Board member Annie Machon, Guardian journalist James Ball and Italian journalists Fabio Chiusi, Carolina Frediani and Omar Monestier. They discussed the journalistic process of working with sensitive documents and a high-risk source in the face of government pressures, the persecution that whistleblowers face and the role of Courage in protecting whistleblowers.

Annie Machon, who helped set up Courage, described the foundation’s inception as beginning with the need to protect Edward Snowden and future intelligence-related whistleblowers who are “automatically criminalised for exposing the crimes of others”. Machon described the “global support” that Courage aims to offer future whistleblowers, as well as the international whistleblower advocacy work of Courage.

Courage’s work is particularly valuable given the “war on whistleblowers” and the severe threats truthtellers face, Machon said, pointing to the fact that President Obama has attempted to apply the Espionage Act more times in his presidency than all previous presidents put together. Although the Espionage Act is a World War I law designed to punish spies, Obama has used it to persecute whistleblowers exposing government criminality and to deny their full and public legal defence. Machon suggests, “the only answer that our governments have to deter future whistleblowers is to crush them and for them to be seen to be crushed.”

However, Machon praised the resilience and courage of whistleblowers, adding, “we have seen whistleblower after whistleblower come out of the UK and the US over the last two decades despite the appalling experiences that each of their predecessors seems to go through.” Mr Snowden was “well aware of the risks he was taking”, she said, as he had witnessed the Espionage Act being used against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou and military whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The whistleblowers exposed warrantless surveillance, illegal torture and war crimes, respectively, yet were themselves persecuted, with Kiriakou sentenced to thirty months in prison and Manning sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. This precedent highlights the extraordinary courage of Mr Snowden and prospective new whistleblowers. “There may be more whistleblowers in the pipeline,” Machon added.

'Thanks Mr Snowden' panel, International Journalism Festival 2014
‘Thanks Mr Snowden!’ panel, International Journalism Festival 2014

Indeed, Machon explained that one of the reasons for setting up Courage was to show potential future whistleblowers that it is possible to survive the process of whistleblowing, “even when you have the USA and the entire intelligence infrastructure of this entirely militarised country chasing you around the planet”.

Government pressure affects not only whistleblowers but the journalists they work with. James Ball, special projects editor at the Guardian who works on the Snowden documents, explained how publishing of the revelations had to be outsourced to the US to benefit from constitutional protections. “We had to battle some quite serious censorship,” Ball said. “The UK government was really putting on severe political pressure.” In addition, journalists had to work under “ridiculous precautions” during the Snowden publications due to the surveillance risks to themselves, the source and their documents. They worked in a controlled environment in a safe room with no external electronic devices allowed inside. Machon recounted her experience of blowing the whistle, when journalists saw her anti-surveillance methods as excessive: “they thought we were overly paranoid.” Of course, now, the Snowden files document the extraordinary surveillance capabilities that journalists and sources should rightly be cautious of.

Machon recommended that journalists working with whistleblowers “display immediately an awareness of the security measures you need to put in place to protect both yourself and your story, but also the whistleblower, to show that you’re serious about trying to ensure they will not be snatched and disappeared into a prison for the next thirty-five years.”

Ball concluded: “Our freedom of expression relies on our privacy. All of our data all of our communications now are online. There is no such thing as ‘digital rights’ – online rights are offline rights.”

Journalists who wish to learn how to protect themselves, their sources and their stories from surveillance can use the Centre for Investigative Journalism’s newly released free handbook, Information Security for Journalists.