AP, Fox News scandals strike at liberty's heart

It could be said that the emergence of a "free press" is one of the most important developments to come out of the years we now remember as the "Age of Enlightenment." That freedom was not a direct result of that philosophy, of course, but it was certainly intertwined with the period that saw men, for the first time, truly challenge the authority of institutions — of popes and kings, monarchs and gods — that had previously been considered absolute.

And nowhere, we have been led to believe, is that concept of a free press as utterly sacred as it is here in America, where we, after separating from the intrusive British crown, not only enumerated it in the Constitution, but made it the first, and most visible, amendment.

However, with the news that the Department of Justice, in its zeal to find out who leaked classified information for a 2012 Associated Press story on a CIA investigation, subpoenaed the personal and work telephone records of about 20 AP reporters and editors, all of us (especially those of us in journalism) have learned that according to them, even the inalienable rights endowed by our mighty Creator have limits.

And then there was the follow-up story that revealed that the same department had been investigating the newsgathering activities of Fox News's chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, sought to label him as a "co-conspirator" for his attempts to solicit classified government information about North Korea for stories — in other words, for reporting.

Combine that with the Obama administration's extraordinarily aggressive crackdown on whistleblowers (it has brought six cases against employees under the 1917 Espionage Act, three more than have ever been prosecuted previously), and it's beginning to look like this president is not altogether fond of the idea of having an independent press.

He backpedaled furiously this week, and said Thursday that he doesn't believe reporters should be "at legal risk for doing their jobs." Unfortunately, the policies that his people, including his snake-in-the-grass attorney general, have implemented run directly contrary to that belief.

As one famous writer might say, "Words are wind," and Obama's ring hollow.

I can understand the government's frustration with regard to the leaks. We are still in the midst of a low-level war against a myriad of Islamist threats that are unlikely to ever cease, and in a democracy, there will always be the need to weigh the First Amendment's protections against national security concerns.

That, however, does not mean that the unequivocal freedom of the press can be infringed upon in the manner it has. I'm not just saying that because of my chosen profession, either. I'm saying it because I have long believed that government entities — big or small, national or local — simply cannot be trusted; as the cliché goes, power corrupts.

The average citizen inevitably has but a limited amount of tools at their disposal should they choose to take on that corruption, and most can easily be swatted away, discredited, or stonewalled by the governmental machine.

But if there is one group that every government everywhere has always felt threatened by, it's the one that includes those of us blessed with a gifted pen, a few strong opinions, and the stony spine needed to publish them.

Our Founding Fathers were all too aware of the potent power of the written word — the fiery Samuel Adams not only launched his own paper in 1748, but regularly used a similar platform later on as a means of inciting the public towards revolution.

"It does not take a majority to prevail," he once said, "but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

That, in itself, is exactly what a free press does. And, even if they prove legal, this administration's attempts to strike at the heart of that is both Nixonian in its deviousness and despicable in its execution.

Perhaps Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it best when he so eloquently reminded his readers that the right to speak out precedes all others in matters of importance.

"To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn't want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can't speak out, you can't defend those rights, either," he wrote.

He's right. And if this president is truly looking to strike a balance between the freedom of the press and the country's national security interests, he's got to take the Department of Justice's foot off the scale first.

Email: janoski@northjersey.com

http://www.northjersey.com/news/209460481_AP__Fox_News_scandals_strike_at_liberty_s_heart.html

Permanently unforgiven: time to pardon Jack Johnson

"When whites ran everything, Jack Johnson took orders from no one. When black Americans were expected to defer to whites, Jack Johnson battered them to the ground." – Ken Burns, "Unforgivable Blackness"

It was over a century after the death of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that a nameless worker at the National Archives found his amnesty oath, written and signed and forgotten by history amongst the plethora of records sitting in the State Department.

The discovery led President Gerald R. Ford to pardon the traitor general, a man who had taken up arms against his country with the sole intent of destroying it, and the corpse was given a country again.

How long does it take, then, to pardon a man who committed no crime other than that mighty offense of being born black in the wrong era? In that case, it appears the government is far less forgiving.

Jack Johnson was one of six children born to former slave parents in Galveston, Texas, in 1878. After a half-dozen years of schooling, he dropped out to work on the docks, and eventually, like so many whose life-paths tend to end in cul-de-sacs, he turned to boxing as a way out.

And what a boxer he was.

Bald-headed and well-muscled, he’d grown to a solid 6-foot-1-inch in height, and even though he weighed somewhere between 190 – 220 pounds, he could move and hit like no one before him. His speed and power were unprecedented, his techniques unrivaled.

But no black man had ever held the heavyweight title before, mostly because being the champ back then meant that you were somewhere between a king and God himself. Plainly put, it was a white man’s title, and nobody was particularly eager for that to change.

So, when the "Galveston Giant" knocked out Canadian champion Tommy Burns on the day after Christmas in 1908, it was much more than just another KO in the squared circle — it was an uplifting moment for every African-American from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific coast.

"No event in 40 years has given more satisfaction to the colored people of this country than has the signal victory of Jack Johnson," said the Richmond Planet.

The following years were tumultuous, though; it was hard enough for white America to have a black champ, but having one like Johnson, who dressed sharp, flaunted his money, kept company with prostitutes, and — worst of all — married white women, was absolutely intolerable. One after another, white challengers were lined up to put Johnson back in his place, and one by one, he defeated them.

Even the legendary Jim Jeffries — the hardened former champ who had retired undefeated and once drank a case of whiskey in two days to cure himself of pneumonia — was pulled out of retirement and made into the establishment’s newest "Great White Hope."

Johnson, of course, whipped him, and on July 4, 1910, beat the 35-year-old Jeffries from post to post until his corner threw in the towel in the 14th round. That night, 20 were lynched during the race riots that burned across the nation as angry whites reacted to African-American celebrations of the victory.

Once it became clear that Johnson would not be beaten on the canvas, the government went a different route — make him fight in the court room instead. And so in 1913, at the height of his career, he was tried for violating the Mann Act, a law that prohibited the interstate transportation of females for "immoral purposes."

Although it was originally intended to prevent prostitution, the wording was loose and ambiguous and could make a crime out of any number of situations — including one where a universally-despised black heavyweight traveled over state lines with the white prostitute he was involved with.

Johnson was convicted by an all-white jury, but skipped bail and went on the run instead. After seven years in Europe, South America, and Mexico, he finally returned to the U.S. in 1920 to serve his jail time. Released in 1921, he spent much of the rest of his life as the stereotypical aging champ — broke and fighting in show after show (to his body’s chagrin) just to earn money for food and beer. He died in a car wreck on June 10, 1946, after racing away in anger from a North Carolina diner that refused to serve him.

His influence, however, would linger, and had profound affect on generations of black boxers afterwards (including one who, 20 years later, would also refuse to be subservient when the white man wanted him to.)

In the years since Johnson’s death, there have been a number of calls to grant the fighter the posthumous pardon he so dearly deserves, but all have died either in Congress or, more recently, on the stoop of President Obama’s White House, which quietly ignored a 2011 congressional resolution urging exoneration.

One more push is being made by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John McCain (R-AZ), however, and another boxing legend — "Iron" Mike Tyson himself — has joined the fight by starting a petition (which can be found at change.org) urging amnesty for the man who "paved the way for black boxers like me."

Four thousand and 90 have signed already. More should.

It is time, America. Not to "forgive" Johnson — after all, he committed no crime, and we should not presuppose that we can forgive an innocent man.

No, it’s time to admit to the crimes of our own racist past, and do our best to make amends by pardoning the man whose only misdeed was being born black in a time when America, quite frankly, hated them. Every day he remains a convict is another that the stain of injustice lies, dried and bloody, upon our hands.

When we finally pardon Johnson, it will be us we’re absolving. And one can only hope that the great champion can find it in his heart forgive us…wherever he may be.


Email: janoski@northjersey.com

http://www.northjersey.com/community/history/more_history_news/203528701_Permanently_unforgiven__time_to_pardon_Jack_Johnson.html?page=all