GEORGIA FORT: Good morning, Amy.My home was surrounded by about two dozen federal agents, including agents from DEA and HSI. I asked to see the warrant. My mother was here. My mother asked to see the warrant. They did show us an arrest warrant, which was then sent to my attorney, who verified its legitimacy.

Since it was an arrest warrant, we decided that it would be safest for me to exit through the garage, so that we could lock the door to our home behind me.

And so, I surrendered. I walked out of my garage with my hands up. And I asked the agents who were there to arrest me if they knew that I was a member of the press. They said they did know that I was a member of the press. I informed them that this was a violation of my constitutional right, of the First Amendment.

And they told me, you know, “We’re just here to do our job.” And I said, “I was just doing my job, and now I’m being arrested for it.” And so, by about 6:30 a.m., they had me in cuffs in the back of the vehicle. We were headed to Whipple.

What I later learned, after I was released, is that these agents stayed outside of my home for more than two hours. And when my 17-year-old daughter felt, you know, threatened, felt scared that these agents weren’t leaving, she decided that it would be safer for her to drive to a relative’s home.

And so she loaded up her sisters, who are 7 and 8, and they went to leave, somewhere where they could go and feel safe. And these agents stopped my children on their way trying to leave because they were scared that these agents were not leaving even after two hours of me being apprehended.

My husband also. He was trailing them. He drove out at the same time that they drove out. They stopped him, questioning him, asking them if they were taking my belongings away, when they were simply trying to leave, because no one could understand, if I was arrested at 6.30 in the morning, why were all of these agents still just sitting outside of my home at 8:30, 9 am.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, how long were you held? And if you could respond to the charges that were brought against you — ironically, violating an 1871 law originally designed to take on the Ku Klux Klan and the FACE Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which is supposed to protect abortion clinics and people going into them for healthcare?

GEORGIA FORT: Well, Amy, to answer your first question, I was detained at Whipple for several hours. Then I was transferred to the US Marshals prison, which is connected to the federal courthouse.

So, I was at Whipple for maybe two or three hours and then transferred to this other facility. I had to be booked into both of them. They collected my DNA. They collected my fingerprints at both of those facilities.

And then, by 1.30, I was able to go before a judge, who did approve my release under normal conditions until this case continues to play out in court. And so, I ended up being released by the afternoon, I think about maybe by about 3.00 the same day.

Now, in terms of the charges that I am facing, I think it’s really absurd to weaponise a law that was meant to protect Black people, and weaponise it against Black people, specifically members of the press. We are at a critical time in this country when you have members of the press, award-winning journalists, who are simply showing up in their capacity to cover the news, being arrested for doing their jobs.

I think I’m not — I wouldn’t be the first person to say this, but we’re having a constitutional crisis. If our First Amendment rights, if our constitutional rights cannot be withheld in this moment, then what does it say about the merit of our Constitution?

And that was the question that I asked right after I was released. Do we have a Constitution? If there are no consequences for the violation of our Constitution, what strength does it really have? What does it say about the state and the health of our democracy?

AMY GOODMAN: Two judges said that you, the journalists, and specifically dealing with Don Lemon, should not be arrested. And yet, ultimately, Pam Bondi took this to a grand jury.

GEORGIA FORT: It goes back to the merit of our Constitution. Who has power in this moment? And I think what we’re seeing here in Minnesota is the people are continuing to stand. They are continuing to demand that our Constitution be upheld.

I believe that journalism is not a crime. And it’s not just my belief; it’s my constitutional right as an American. And so, I’m hopeful that I have a extremely great legal team, and so we’ll continue to go through this.

But, you know, I’d ask the question — I think you played the clip earlier: What message does this send to journalists across the country who are simply doing their jobs documenting what is happening? But the reality is, when you’re out documenting what’s happening, you are creating a record that can either incriminate or exonerate someone, and so what we do has so much power, especially in these times.

And so, I believe that is why journalism is under attack, media is under attack.

This would not be the first time in the last 12 months where we have seen a tremendous force come against people who are speaking truth to power on their platforms. Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off air. The nation was outraged about it. There was a segment that was supposed to air on 60 Minutes that was pulled. This isn’t the first time, I mean, and we can even historically go back. There have . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Though that, too, ultimately, was played, after enormous outcry, only recently.

GEORGIA FORT: Absolutely, absolutely. And I was going to say, you know, we could even go back further and look at the recent exodus of Black women in mainstream media: Joy Reid, Tiffany Cross, Melissa Harris-Perry, April Ryan.

So, there has been — this is not new in terms of the attack on media and journalism, the attack on Black women who are documenting what’s happening.

And so, I will say I am extremely grateful that the National Association of Black Journalists issued a statement on behalf of myself and Don Lemon, which was signed by dozens of other journalism agencies and institutions.

I am the vice-president of my local chapter. We saw the International Women’s Alliance of Media issue a statement. We saw our local media outlets here, Star Tribune, NPR, Minnesota Reformer, Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder and Sahan Journal, so many media and journalism institutions standing up and speaking out against this attack on the free press and the violation of our constitutional right.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Georgia, I want to thank you so much for being with us, and we will continue to follow your case. Independent journalist Georgia Fort, speaking to us from Minneapolis. She and former CNN host Don Lemon were arrested last week for covering a protest inside a St Paul church where a top ICE official serves as a pastor.

Many children took part in the rally at Te Komititanga Square and the return march up Queen Street in spite of the bitterly wet and cold weather. Many of them carried placards and Palestinian flags like their parents.

One young boy carried a placard declaring “Just a kid standing in front of his PM asking him to grow a heart and a spine”. The heart was illustrated as a Palestinian flag.

Other placards included slogans such as “Wanted MPs with a spine” and “Grow a spine for Palestine”, and “They try to bury us forgetting we are seeds” with the resistance watermelon symbol.

Many placards demanded sanctions and condemned Israel, saying “Gaza is starving. Words won’t feed them — sanction Israel now”, “NZ government: Your silence is complicity with Israeli genocide” and “Free Palestine now”.

Disillusionment with leaders
One poster expressed disillusionment with both the coalition government and opposition Labour Party leaders, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins, denouncing “apologists for genocide”.

Another poster challenged both Hipkins and Luxon over “what values” they stood for. It said:

“Our ‘leaders’ have refused to call for a ceasefire even after 10,000+ innocent civilians have been brutally murdered in their own homes, including 4000+ CHILDREN all under the name of “Kiwi values”.

“They, like a lot of other world politicians, are apologists for genocide.”

Frustration has been growing among the public with the government’s reluctance to declare support for Palestinian statehood after 96 consecutive weeks of protests organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and other groups, not just in the largest city of Auckland and the capital Wellington, but also in Christchurch and in at least 20 other towns and communities across the motu.

The “spine” theme in chants and posters followed just days after Parliament suspended Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick following a fiery speech about Gaza when she said government MPs should grow a spine and sanction Israel for its atrocities.

She had refused to apologise to the House and supporters at the rally today gave her rousing cheers in support of her defiance.

‘We need your help’
Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told the crowd: “We need you to help her put the pressure on so that we can fight together in that place [Parliament] for our people to free, free Palestine; from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

“Return our dignity Aotearoa. Stand up for what is right. There is only one side to support in genocide, only one side. And Te Pati Māori will only work with those.”

When Swarbrick spoke to the crowd, she repeated her goal to find six government MPs “with a spine” to support her bill to “sanction Israel for its war crimes”.

She also said the Palestinian people were being “starved and slaughtered by Israel” in Gaza, adding that their breath was being “stolen from them” by the IDF (Israeli “Defence” Force).

“It is our duty, all human beings with breath left in our lungs, with the freedom to chant and to move and to demand action from our politicians, to do all that we can to fight for liberation for all peoples,” she said.

Other politicians speaking were Orini Kaipara, the Te Pati Māori candidate for the Tāmaki Mākaurau byelection, and Kerrin Leoni, mayoral candidate for Tamaki.

Targeted assassinations
Earlier, the targeted assassinations of six journalists by the Israeli military last Sunday — taking the toll to 272 — was condemned by independent journalist and Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie. He also criticised the NZ media silence.

Noting that New Zealand journalists had not condemned the killings or held a vigil as the Media Alliance (MEAA) had done in Australia, he cited an Al Jazeera journalist, Hind Khoudary, whose message to the world was:

“We are being hunted and killed in Gaza while you watch in silence. For two years, your fellow journalists here have been slaughtered.

What did you do? Nothing.”

A recent poll on whether New Zealanders want sanctions to be imposed on Israel, showed that of those who gave an opinion, 60 percent favoured sanctions.

The PSNA commissioned survey by Talbot Mills in July with 1216 respondents gave a similar result to one commissioned by Justice for Palestine a year ago.

Popular support for sanctions
PSNA co-chair John Minto said the numbers showed strong popular support for sanctions. The 60 percent overall rose to 68 percent for the 18–29 year category.

“The government is well out of step with public opinion and ignores this message at its peril.  There is popular support for sanctions against Israel,” he said.

“People see that Israel is committing the worst atrocities of the 21st century with impunity. It is starving a whole population.

“It has destroyed just about every building in Gaza. It is assassinating journalists. It holds 7000 Palestinian hostages in its jails without charge.  Its goal of occupying all of Gaza and ethnically cleansing its people into the Sudan desert, is all public knowledge.”

Minto said Israel’s “depraved Prime Minister” who was wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICJ) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, had boasting that if Israel was really committing genocide, “it could have killed everyone in Gaza in a single afternoon”.

“The poll shows New Zealand First supporters are most opposed to sanctions against Israel (59 percent of those who gave an opinion were opposed) so it’s little surprise Winston Peters is dragging the chain.”

By Dr Johan Lidberg in Melbourne

Australia is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world. Since September 11, 2001, it has passed 54 laws.

The latest suggested addition is the Turnbull government’s crackdown on foreign interference. The bill has been heavily criticised by Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and major media organisations for being too heavy-handed and far-reaching in the limits it would place on freedom of expression and several other civil liberties.

The government’s own intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, argues the bill is so widely worded that its own staff could break the law for handling documents they need to access to do their job.

READ MORE: New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists

A case in point is whether the ABC’s publication of confidential and secret cabinet documents would be in breach of the proposed bill. Two filing cabinets full of thousands of confidential cabinet documents were given to the ABC by a source who, astonishingly, had bought them for small change at an op-shop in Canberra.

The ABC made an assessment and chose to publish a very limited number of the documents it deemed in the public interest. The ABC has so far clearly acted responsibly, and no documents that could harm Australia’s national security were in the first publication.

Some of the published documents are embarrassing for both the current and former Coalition and Labor governments, but that should not stop publication – rather, the opposite.

What the bill would mean
The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill.

Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.

The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.

The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.

In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS countries and the situation in the European Union.

Fear-driven security
Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.

Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.

Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.

The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out.

That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?

There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.

‘Other’ enemy
Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.

The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage.

If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.

Dr Johan Lidberg is an associate professor in the School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation on a Creative Commons licence and is republished with the author’s permission.