In his book, Fighting for the Press: The Pentagon Papers & Other Battles, Goodale presents a first-hand account of what happened as lawyers sought to defend the newspaper from the government. He describes how Max Frankel, foreign reporter for the Times, informed him he had “documents related to the Vietnam War.” He did not, at first, see them but was confronted with the issue of whether it was legal for the press to publish classified information.

In a small auditorium at the Newseum in Washington, DC, Brave New Films director Robert Greenwald held the premiere of his new documentary, “War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.” It features four stories of men who are clear examples of whistleblowers that most Americans would think deserve protection when exposing government corruption, misconduct or wrongdoing, however, officials chose to protect the National Security State and retaliate each of these men for speaking out.

National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake delivered a speech at the National Press Club luncheon on March 15. He addressed the “long shadow of government secrecy” that increasingly “obscures the view of democracy in our constitutional republic or what’s left of it.”

The speech focuses explicitly on free speech and the First Amendment. Drake was indicted under the Espionage Act and threatened with the potential of serving the rest of his life in prison for exposing fraud, waste, abuse and illegality related to warrantless wiretapping by the NSA.

Four days away from massive austerity that would result in cuts to the United States government, the Pentagon is suggesting the cuts would make it harder to fight cyber threats.

A classified intelligence assessment shows the United States is “the target of a massive, sustained cyber-espionage campaign that is threatening the country’s economic competitiveness,” according to the Washington Post.

The government argued two motions in the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning intended to constrain the defense from being able to discuss motive and over-classification of information.

The new provision notably applies to all “government officials,” including White House officials. It may oblige the Administration either to abstain from authorized disclosures of classified intelligence to the press, or to revise its policies to more clearly permit such disclosures, or to somehow evade the new reporting requirement, perhaps by defining it away. Thus, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney stated in 2004 that classified information could be used “to shape and inform what one says publicly” without violating prohibitions on disclosure of classified information

The Cold War system of classifying and declassifying information held by United States government agencies is “overly complex, “keeps too many secrets” for to long and obstructs information sharing inside government and with the public, according to a report produced by a board of individuals that President Barack Obama ordered on classified information.

A military judge has ruled that statements made by defendants on trial for their involvement in the September 11th attacks could be censored if they make statements about how they were tortured or abused.

Judge Col. James Pohl ruled the government had “submitted declarations…from representatives of the CIA, [Department of Defense], and FBI invoking the classified information privilege and explaining how disclosure of the classified information at issue would be detrimental to national security in that the information relates to the sources, methods, and activities by which the United States defends against international terrorism and terrorist organizations.” These explanations included how the government believed disclosure of methods of interrogation or torture would be harmful.

An interagency Insider Threat Task Force has established “minimum standards” for responding to threats, according to a memo signed by President Barack Obama. The “standards” include policies to prevent “unauthorized disclosures” of information.