Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill
Last night, I read this
New York Times article
(free reg. req.) about Clinton's veto of what would have been a new law to prevent leaks of classified information. But I didn't understand its significance until I read
this earlier Salon.com article
by Daniel Ellsburg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers so that U.S. citizens could learn how their government had lied to them about Vietnam. "If Congress were so scrupulous about the First Amendment, it wouldn't have passed this law," says Ellsburg. I'm gratified to see a politician refusing on principle to extend government's powers. Here's
the President's statement; and here's
the bill (sponsor: Rep. Goss, R-Fla.).
Does anyone out there actually believe Attorney General Reno understands democracy?
Ruby Ridge? Waco??
Come on!
-the wunderhorn
This is a tremendous oversimplification: Leaks can work both ways. They may lead to deaths, but they may prevent them, as well.
You are an idiot, but don't worry, I am sure your Bush friend will come and fix things. Be proud, be very proud. I am sure Bush would have vetoed this, right? Idiot!
Last time I checked, Nixon was elected in 1968, and didn't start serving as President until 1969. That would have been obvious to him at the time, when he leaked it, but Nixon makes an easy target today, since most people won't do the math. JFK, and LBJ were responsible for getting us mired waste deep in that war, but some how Nixon takes all the heat.
Nixon wasn't blameless in the loss of human lives, just not guilty at the time of the Pentagon Papers publication.
Bush is a bitch due to, ehhh...
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -GWB
Do you think Dubya would have happily signed this one off? With all the rights infringing bills that get passed down from congress these days, I hate to think that there might be no one to stop them.
They have posters and stuff ALL over where I'm working talking about how you are going to serve hard time if you "share" information.
That may be espionage only though ... i'm not sure where they draw that line. For black projects probably wherever the hell they want is what i'm guessing. I'm not gonna try and find out ...
Certainly an interesting point that bears more looking into, cause it sounds like you know a lot more about it than I do ... and I think i may "need to know." sorry. :-)
dv
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
Certainly not looking for legal advice or anything like that! Upon finding out that the actual act of disclosing classified information isn't inherantly illegal I'm just interested in what IS.
Thanks for taking the time to provide additional info. I really appreciate it. You cleared up the a lot of the things I didn't get.
I had no idea that half of this stuff was even online!
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
I got some groundbreaking news for you ... when you get brief in to obtain a security clearance to receive classified data you end up siging paper that says exactly that. When you get debriefed you sign the same thing again. In DoD land anyway. Politicians and their staffs (who tend to leak like cheap coffee filters) may not have to do this ... I dono.
I may be missing something but reading the legislation I don't see anything in there that isn't already being done actually, besides intel agency budget and tasking items.
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
But if he had succeeded, who would employ Canadian doctors?
(1/4 of Canadian doctors work in America, along with numerous other refugees from Socialism. And America is footing the worlds drug development cost, along with most other medical advances. Freedom isn't free. Socialism is slavery.)
I wonder if he veto'd this for the sole purpose of hyping the party.. He is going to say "blah blah, this is b/c the democratic party is so great".
who knows, just a thought..
Well, considering that my wife and I want to move to Canadia, especially if Dubya wins as it looks like he will, maybe we can arrange a swap or something?
---
The linkt ml
;-)
http://www.w hit ehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/November_4_2000.h
no longer goes to the President's statement.
Perhaps the link generated too much traffic.
Perhaps the Secret Service is now closely monitoring the threat of this "slashdot.org" which seems to be attempting a DoS attack on whitehouse.gov.
That's the most well reasoned and intelligent thing I've ever seen come out of this administration. Someone must've replaced Clinton with a benign space alien. He even unequivocally addresses the fact that Congress is largely hostile to him at the bottom of the essay.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I don't understand how it's ok to give away some elses property, regardless of the reason.
Those 45540135 published 70 boxes of research into my bad behavior. I'm damn sure not going to let them legislate a coverup for their bad behavior!</BC>
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You don't think Dubya will actually be running the country himself, do ya? He will simply do what Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, and his Mom, TELL him to do... Some of that may be a good thing, in his case, but the principle is abhorrent. We need someone with COURAGE, and leadership skills, to run for BOTH parties (or ALL parties), so we can vote with our hearts and our heads, not with our noses pinched closed.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Not to mention that he doesn't want to fuck over his wife's campaign for Senate. How much you want to bet that Dubya will get 8 years in office, then when his brother Jeb runs, Mrs. Clinton runs against him? It is amazing to think that this does not have ZERO probability...
Politics has become TOO inbred.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
I assumed Bush Sr.'s term in the presidency would have precluded any Bush Jr.'s from running for dog catcher, much less making a viable run for the presidency. One mustn't be too cocky...
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
prove it.
Mafia dealings...
prove it.
Whitewater, et al....
prove it.
Underhanded campeign deals with the Chinese, etc...
prove it, or shut up.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I actually doubt that. I know that in my little microcosm, most of the people who are disgusted with his behavior are/were mostly Democrats. I confess that I used to be an almost yellow dog democrat until about the middle of the impeachment trial, when I simply couldn't take it anymore. I'm not alone, my entire family (all lifelong democrats) feel the same way, and are planning to change registration after this current election. My priest, also a lifelong democrat, was moved to change his registration to independent, because of his disgust for the man.
I think that there are several reasons for this. My family lives in a small mining town in western Pennsylvania (yes, in a swing state). The mines don't exist anymore, but their legacy voting habits do. My old precinct had about 93% registered democrats. Registering and voting the straight ticket is what everybody just does here. Even though the party is in complete control locally, almost nobody in this area agrees with the far left leaning of the party propper. We all hunt and own guns (many guns). We feel that family bonds are important (Quayle's Family Values). Most of us favor defense spending over social programs. We elected a Pro-Life democrat governor several years ago, who was not allowed to speak at the national convention in 1996 because of his stance on this particular issue.
By and large, we are appalled at the behavior that our party tolerates in Washington (Bill, Teddy, Barney, etc.), still, most of us remain blindly loyal to this party which was responsible for the mining jobs (and utter destruction of our local environment) of our parents and grandparents. This year, many of us have finally woken up and caused a problem for Al. Holywood is trying to come to his rescue here, but it seems to be backfiring.
In contrast, when I talk to my wife's grandparents, lifelong republicans, they don't understand why everyone is so upset about Bill Clinton. I think that they are more forgiving as they have no association with him. I remember once when Sen. Packwood was brought up in their company, and they reacted much the same as I do to Clinton, with disgust because a member of their party had done something to bring shame on the party as a whole.
Only my two cents.
-- Len
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Sexual harassment...
All his illigal political dealings in Arkansas...
Mafia dealings...
Whitewater, et al....
Underhanded campeign deals with the Chinese, etc...
Anything else? Sure, not all of them have been proven, but it's just beuracracy at it's worst that's prevented that, alongside overpowering government that has changed laws to it's advantage. Scary thing is, Gore was in a good deal of his presidential follies.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
But I'm not talking about just Democrats and Republicans. I was talking specifically about Clinton. Clinton's list compares quite nicely to the entire 'Republican list,' have you. That's pathetic on Clinton's part.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Does this mean I can't have something positive to say about him?
Nobody's totally evil or wrong.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Yes, and it looks like we're going to go from an outstanding orator and statesman to a "likable fella" who I'm not sure can tie his own shoes let alone string together a few hundred words on the Constitutional implication of a bill.
If that Representative Goss was any smart, he would have stuck his fancy-schmancy wonder-law in an appropriations bill. It would have been approved lickety-split. You can put anything in those appropriations bills. Not only does no one care, but the President will approve it!
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Applause for Clinton.
This veto gets him a DAMNED big score in the "good" column when it comes to toting up his legacy.
(And anyone who knows my opinion of him will understand how significant it is that he gets any praise from me at all.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
a) In the House, there would be no accountability on this case: it was passed via voice vote, apparently. There are references to Unanimous Consent for the Senate, however.
b) On issues, those categories are MUCH too broad -- and this is a basic problem with polls and so forth. "Do you support Affirmative Action?", for instance, arguably deserves an essay about WHAT TYPES are being considered, for whom, why, and so forth, rather than simply breaking down views into pro- / anti-. There's a whole continuum of opinions out there, so you'd have to post their entire voting histories (including link to bill text), plus probably any speeches they made or so forth, to do 'em justice.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Not to mention the possibility of classified information being entered into a court record and possibly publicized.
My understanding is that in the Wen Ho Lee case, his attorneys threatened to try to get as much of the material thusly made public -- that is, they basically blackmailed the prosecution with threats of disclosing classified information. The Government did not want to have nuclear secrets read aloud in Court, 'natch, and backed down.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
That which a Government redistributes has mostly, if not entirely, been taken away from the people -- usually with the threat of force.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
When the press wants something from politicians, they usually get it. The last thing any public figure wants is an angry media.
Free Hans!
But that happens all the time. Many Americans get killed by the use of information by our media system. Desert Storm ring a bell? Not because of leaked papers or anything, but our mass marketted media programming has the ability to rally the ignorant masses into military action anytime they want. Why doesn't our congress pass a bill that says any news that ends up costing american lives gets everyone in that news conglomerate the death penalty? But I guess that would be sorta hypocritical, wouldn't it?
I'm a slacker, that's the wrong link. This works. Really!.
Heh. I don't plan to.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Quite possible the most lucid thing I've heard *any* career politican say.
Stupid is as stupid dies.
Gore is the next best alternative, and the only way to have a veto on a Republican Congress and Senate. If Bush wins, the cowboys will have a field day with the -expected- surplus. They've got their eyes on the loot... er prize.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
Since when does socialism give more power to the government? Socialism is about obligating the government to give more to the people, not the other way around.
The reality is that most of the money going into social programmes comes from the people who don't really miss money much--the rich people. 5% of Bill Gates' paycheck won't bother Bill Gates much but it will feed a huge amount of hungry people.
You go watch those people die of starvation and then you tell me about how Bill Gates has a right to that extra 5% of his money.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid I must disagree with the majority of the statements posted. The VAST majority of the classified information out there is classified legitimately. Our government has information that will be harmful in one way or another if it is released to the general public. If you don't agree with this concept, do not agree to be a trustee of said information. Sadly enough, some of this information can result in people's death. But there is already a control on the abuse of classified information, it is called your own moral code and civil disobedience. If the government is intentionally abusing the public's rights by classifying documents unnecessarily...or classifying documents to cover up full disclosure of our own mistakes, then I believe you have a legitimate cause for civil disobedience. I'm implying civil disobedience in the classical sense. You put thought into your actions, acknowledging that you will be prosecuted for your actions, but doing it for the good of the country (not to mention your own soul). Take the punishment, perhaps become a martyr, but more likely be exonerated if what you were doing is legitimate. Disclosure, open source, and free speech are awesome tools....but I think everyone must acknowledge that some of this information is sensitive. In this period of some of the most damaging classified incidents ever.....shouldn't someone be held accountable for releasing our secrets to the Chinese? Hope this doesn't turn into flamebait. ~AG
As opposed to the Democrats, who're hell-bent on acquiring more greed and power for themselves, and turning this country into a socialist state in the process? Let's face it. The 2-party system is an elaborate ruse. I'll be voting for Browne this election.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
My view of the vetoed law is simply that I think it was not a good idea as a matter of public policy to have a General Secrets Act in this country. They do have a General Secrets Act in Britain, but then in Britain the rights of free speech and free press are very different. At present there are many administrative penalties, and there is the possibility of criminal prosecution under certain circumstances, but only under those certain circumstances. Leaking info to the press may in certain circumstances be criminal presently (e.g., there was a man who went to prison for giving a magazine a spy photo of a Russian aircraft carrier in the mid 80s) but in many cases it may not be (because the disclosure of the info in question would not be prejudicial to the interests or safety of the US), although of course the leaker could lose his job or his clearance.
Take a look at the statutes, executive orders and regulations relating to national security for yourself. Executive Order 12958 is informative as it defines the framework of the classification system, and to look at it go here and search for 12958. Another very informative source of information is a booklet published by the Information Security Oversight Office that explains the classification scheme; especially enlightening is the FAQ at the end of the booklet.
All of these statutes and regs require more than the simple fact that information has been administratively classified as confidential as a predicate for the imposition of criminal liability. For example, some of these statutes require that the disclosure be harmful to the safety or interests of the United States or beneficial to the interests of a foreign government to the detriment of the U.S. And there is criminal liability for misappropriation of government property, such as physical documents. Others provide penalties for any unauthorized disclosure in any circumstances of certain categories: such as diplomatic codes, such as nuclear weapon designs, and the identity of American agents. One law certainly does allows the government to administratively classify as criminal the unauthorized disclosure of certain categories of information relating national security to people known to represent foreign governments or Communist organizations. Of course I am generalizing about these laws and a lawyer would need to dig into the language of the laws and the relevant caselaw and regulations to apply the law to a specific fact situation, but if you look at the various statutes, I think you'll see what I mean.
What these statutes do not do is criminalize as a general matter the unauthorized disclosure of classified information simply because it is classified. Rather, there have to be some added circumstances. Leaking information (as long as they are not codes or nuclear secrets or the names of covert agents) to the American press or to Congress in most circumstances (i.e. when it does not harm the interests of the United States)will usually not be a criminal act under present law
I certainly would never encourage people who have signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement to violate their oaths lightly, as I think that there are many activities that our government engages in that would be best left unknown to our nation's adversaries. National security is not a light matter. However, there have been too many instances, the chief one being that of the Pentagon Papers case, where information classification has been used to try to keep essential or controversial information from other branches of government and from the American people for reasons other than that of national security. I would be very uncomfortable with a General Secrets Act, and think it would contrary to the spirit of our kind of democracy.
Ed
It's interesting how Bill Gates has become the equivalent of Satan or Adolph Hitler in some people's eyes. Were you aware that the vast portion of his fortune will end up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? He's already transferred enough of his money to it to give it one of the largest endowments of any foundation in the world. Did you know that the foundation will be dedicated to providing vaccinations and health care to the people of the third world? Do you have one single idea about what you're bleating about? I thought not. You're more interested in bitching about how the damned 'rich' people don't really need all that money they earned, and so let's just take it from them. Here's a free clue: it's the 'rich' who employ people. You wanna see starvation and poverty, take the money away so that they can't hire you.
Speaking of Nader, would someone please explain to me what the big deal is about him? Why is everyone going lala over him? As far as I can tell he is still for big government.
I'd like to think Clinton did a better job that Dubya is about to do (PLEASE VOTE AGAINST HIM!) but I'm not sure. He made some mistakes but truthfully, the majority of the people who are disgusted with his behavior are hardcore republicans so he doesn't really care because those people were already polarized against him.
Now this is off-topic, -1
Never underestimate the power of the letter j
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
The news is present at the site of Electronic Privacy Information Center: http://www.epic.org/ Clinton's statement is @: http://www.whitehouse.gov/library/hot_releases/Nov ember_4_2000.html
This act is one of much more which did. Ii do not know if you have any personal reasons against him, but he is not the first president who lied about "PERSONAL STUFF". The fact that had f*cked in the white house is not a crime; he is not the first and will not be that last one to do it.
He is the smartest president you will get in more that 30 years. He did his best to serve this country and in no way did he intend to do it any harm.
It is unfortunate that the majority of the population are either brain washed by the media, or have their pockets as their main interest.
Now, about Clinton. Yes he signed into law some terrible laws like the Anti-terrorism act DMCA, etc. Did I wish he wouldn't? sure. Did I wish he'd show more leadership on this? You bet. But it is a bit exagerated to blame Clinton for a national disgrace that is everyone's.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Clinton is a politician. He has to deal with a hostile and pretty dreadful congress. He has to pick his fights strategically, and guess what is his way of choosing. He won't pick up a fight that won't resonate with middle class voters and most middle class voters cannot understand what is wrong with the DMCA or with putting a few bearded muslims in jail for speaking while being Muslim.
He will fight congress wherever he can see political gain, and it's the job of civic organizations to deliver political gain to those politicians who protect liberty.
It seems that the area of larger than life leaders, for all our desire, is over for a while. (and Clinton has been pretty large--that is why so many people hate him). We get poll-driven politicians. And if liberty fails at the poll, don't build on politicians to save us from our own apathy.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
What this shows, is that a) we got a congress that will screw you through the back door.
And b) when the media really cares about freedom the President ( this one at least) will cave in.
The next one will probably just smile and say, don't worry, I'm the leader, that is leadership, blah blah blah, let's not divide ourselves into this classissified documentation issue. blah blah, every one should be an account, sorry, accountable, blah the media shouldn't hold the first ammendment hostile to the security of the nation, blah blah.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
and you'd get the award for "cowardness"
If the election were held today and Clinton were running he'd get my vote right away.. but alas, that would be a step towards monarchy- not a good thing. too bad for bill, he's the man.
what do you think?
your statement oozes so much with republican bias that it pretty much discredits itself. sir, you have no idea what you're talking about.
yep, that's why republicans could care less about a certain DWI.. hey, at least we know what the W stands for now.. :)
But seriously, have any of you read "Will" by G Gordon Liddy? He expresses the opposite opinion to what you guys are talking about here, and reading his autobiography was a very moving experience for me.
It makes sense that governments in general try to do the best job they can, from their point of view. Scum like Daniel Ellsburg endanger lives for their own profit and egos, when they leak documents by exposing agents under cover who often put their lives on the line for their country.
Tax cuts in the form of corporate welrafe
Bush's tax cuts will only continue perpetuating the national debt.
Taxes happen, deal with 'em, and if you're so worried about taxes, find a job that pays more.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
This rabid greed and you-can't-have-it mentality is a depressing statement of exactly the sort of thing that capitalism breeds. Sigh.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader had been protesting this bill all along. The negative publicity this would have created would have been horrendous. It is quite possible that political reasons motivated President Clinton rather than anything else. It seems like this bill would have been handy for the government's use, although suppressive of free speech.
Ceci n'est pas un post
OK, you can burn in hell, you lucky bastard.
if they had criminalized leaks, call it a "conspiracy theory"...what's the difference, noone but the insiders really know the truth
--------------
How about we make serving in the legislature a requirement, like jury duty? Ok, seriously, I see term limits as being one big improvement. It's certainly done quite a bit to break up the dynastic power cliques that used to rule the California legislature. And it's finally gotten us a year in which Bill Clinton isn't running, thank God. Extending term limits to the U.S. congress would be a good thing, IMO.
As opposed to the original poster's oh-so-balanced description of Clinton, huh? Pffft. Democrats just can't stand it when a conservative has a little fun at their expense; it always sends them into their reflexive rant mode. By the way, which of my statements do you dispute: that Carter was an intellectual peer with Clinton, or that Republicans have held the Congress for past 6 years?
That's right - 1/4 of our doctors go for the big bucks and move south of the border to service the proportion of the US population who can afford decent medical care.
;)
There ARE remedies to this problem, they just require political will. Doctors who draw on Canadian resources to get their medical degree at a fraction of it's actual cost should be contractually obligated to provide medical care in Canada for a period of time.
Socialism isn't slavery, it's a rational distribution of national assets. Although the talented and lucky in the U.S. may outperform their Canadian counterparts, at least we don't need to look over our shoulders and make sure the institutionalized underclass isn't ready to revolt yet. Freedom in terms of political rights (eg speech) are distinct from economic rights (eg markets). It appears to me that when these rights are in conflict in a pathologically capitalist state like the USA, it's the economic rights which win out.
By the way, anyone want to hire me to work in the US using a TN Visa?
The 15% includes both provincial and federal sales tax. I agree that high sales tax is bad, because it unfairly penalizes the poor. Our "tax freedom day" came sometime in June this year, so I guess something close to 50% of our income is taxed. It's not, however, "taken by the government". It's redistributed by the people's elected representatives. Remember, that tax money doesn't disappear from the economy. An active participant in our economy will have many opportunities to dip into that revenue stream, directly or indirectly.
.38 special or 12-gauge bird gun are going to be pretty useless.
Also, interestingly enough, the argument you make about demoralization of the poor through social programs appears to be wrong, at least in Canada. I always had a hard time with this argument because it DOES hang together and appear consistent. However, some new research has showed that there is a constant turnover among people living below the poverty line in Canada, and that most people spend only a short part of their lives under the poverty line. Interesting, isn't it? I doubt that a study of American poor would have the same results. It appears, although causation is of course not proven, that the social safety net we have here in Canada actually works and keeps people from being permanently marginalized.
It's unfortunate that your Canadian relatives appear to be a poor example. I can assure you that I personally have never recieved a dime of government assistance (although I'm glad it's there "just in case") aside from good roads, a safe environent, a fine education system and free medical care.
So everyone who is homeless is a drug addict or crazy? Interesting, but I would doubt that.
You may indeed pay less for your health care, but that is based on an actuarial table that indicates you are a low risk. By definition a non-profit enterprise like Ontario Health Insurance Plan has a lower absolute cost, since there is no profit-taking (aside from the pharmaceutical companies, of course, but we'll leave them out of it). A high risk individual I am sure would have a much higher insurance cost, or possibly not be able to GET insurance. What if, god forbid of course, you were HIV positive or had a congenital birth defect? Good luck getting insurance from the soulless US insurance companies.
The whole argument about needing guns to overthrow the government is ridiculous. The only major risk for the USA in terms of a change in government would be a military takeover, which I think is pretty much unlikely (your military is pretty subservient to the civil arm, which is a Good Thing). In the case of a military takeover your
Switzerland and New Zealand may have low crime rates along with an armed population but there are two key differences from the US. They have a much lighter density of population, and they do not have a society that is, at bottom, based on violence. Sorry to say that but unfortunately that is how the USA was created, by violent resistance to the legal government. Your revolution was a bloody conflict brought about by land speculators and profiteers who balked at paying their legal government taxes to support a military that was protecting them. OUR revolution was basically a bar fight. The result, 200 years down the line, appears to be pretty much the same in terms of democracy. We were fortunate enough to be able to use the model of parliamentary democracy in framing our government system, whereas you had to come up with an experimental system that clearly doesn't work as well. We have the Queen on our money and you have a centuries-old legacy of violence.
Maybe 1776 was a bad idea no?
Oh, and one more thing. Despite what you may have been taught in school, we won the war of 1812. We burned Washington, while some Francis Scott Key dude watched OUR bombs bursting in air, and OUR rockets' red glare. SCOREBOARD!!
Boy. We've sure gotten away from the original topic haven't we? I got a little carried away up the thread. I don't hate the USA. However I think as a foreign observer I can see the hypocrisy a little clearer.
I am very serious about your country's violent birth having long term effect. It's just a theory, sure, but it seems to me that it's had long term effect on national attitudes.
Listen, the British Empire was not 100% clean, certainly. However, even in 1776 it WAS a limited monarchy. The USA was birthed in violence, without doubt. It was pure good luck that kept the American Revolutionaries from the path of Jacobinism. George Washington was a brilliant moderate. If it weren't for that lucky break, it's not unlikely that the American Experiment would have ended with the kind of bloodbath that the French Revolution did.
Public money doesn't disappear. It goes back to the private sector.
Our currency is going down in value because of NAFTA and our lower interest rates. If we raised interest rates, it would improve our currency's value vs. the dollar at the expense of economic growth. No thanks. However, I'd like to see our damned debt paid off so that we don't have to be beholden to foreign currency speculators anymore. Looks like another decade or so will turn the trick on that one, barring economic catastrophe.
As long as you bring good ol' American greenbacks with you, you can take shelter in my brand-new "George W. Bush Refugee Centre" (formerly known as "The Toolshed"). $10.00 US per night, dig your own latrine please.
hmm. 10.00 USD per day probably equals my salary in Canadian Pesos.
We have a constitution, also. I never said anything about enshrining social programs in the supreme law of the land. Social programs are a little more elastic than a constitutionally-enshrined law. As times change we can alter our social programs to existing conditions, as does the U.S.
Our health care system does have some flaws, yes. I happen to think that, despite it's flaws, it's far superior to a system that excludes great chunks of the population. Emergency-room service is a problem. However, we have to decide as a nation how to allocate our resources. Currently there is a little bit of "conservatism" creeping into Canadian politics. I'd blame these right-wing policies for creating an underfunded health-care environment.
My sales tax is 15%, not 22%.
It's never been a problem for me not to be able to own a weapon. My father always had (and still has) a gun rack with some beautiful rifles in it for hunting. However, I can't remember the last time there was a violent crime committed with a weapon in my town (Windsor, Ontario), unless it was by an American from Detroit who happened across the border with his constitutionally-guaranteed handgun in his pocket. All I have to do is look across the Detroit River to see what happens when you have unrestrained capitalism, rampant poverty, and Wild-West style gun laws. Doesn't look very attractive.
Socialism isn't a "slippery slope", at least not in the Canadian experience. Funding for social programs expands and contracts according to the will of the electorate. We've reexamined welfare, health care, education, etc. numerous times in my memory. We just have some basic values of inclusion and universality that you would do well to really think about before you just have a programmed, knee jerk reaction.
Look, to my mind American conservatives are being duped, unless you are one of the primary benificiaries of the system (ie. a billionaire). Your political leaders trot out this crappy old FUD about freedom and self-determination and self-reliance, meanwhile millions of your fellow citizens lead lives of hopelessness that are "nasty,brutish and short". If you make a hundred grand a year and think you're a natural benificiary of the system, you're kidding yourself.
I never said I fear the poor. I fear anyone who I have systematically excluded from the benefits of society. AFAIK that's exactly no one.
:)
Yes, I would oppose that "school choice" bill. You obviously have a badly broken education system. Your response (predictably) is to create a parallel, private system from which the privileged can partake in an unequal manner.
I wouldn't set up barriers to keep anyone from leaving Canada. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Canadian doctors who take advantage of subsidized public education, student loans, etc. to become educated to a great extent at the Canadian people's expense and then leave because the money's better somewhere else.
I have no objection to a Canadian paying his way through a U.S. medical school and practicing medicine anywhere he damn well pleases. I just think it's unfair to take advantage of the socialist system when it is to your benefit and then run away when it's not.
If I offered to pay for half or more of your education, on the condition that you used your newfound skills to my benefit (as well as your own personal enrichment), how exactly would such a deal be unfair?
A lot of your vitriol seems to be based on some supposed lack of freedom that Canadians have. Explain to me how exactly we are one iota less free (as in speech) than you by any measure that matters (ownership of the tools of violence notwithstanding). We are, as a community, significantly more economically free than you are, since our social structure is much less rigidly stratified than yours, regardless of the "self-made man" myths you use to perpetuate your unfair economic system.
I was also disappointed to see you modded down. You were no more inflammatory or biased than I was, albiet I have the advantage of being right.
Of course public money doesn't disappear. It's not as though the government BURIES the stuff. Just because they can't account for it doesn't mean it's not gettings spent. How many unproductive savings accounts do you the the guvment has?
I certainly don't think that the USA has a monopoly on violence, but the level of violence currently experienced is unparalleled in developed nations.
Certainly every country has incidents in it's past to be ashamed of, especially empire-building countries, like Britain in the past or the USA more recently. Aboriginal people in particular have had a pretty raw deal. None of this is LESS true of the US than any other country.
Canada has had self-government for over a century.
I am most certainly not "really young". It may surprise you to discover that I am and have been a business owner here in Canada. I've been living, and thriving, in the "real world" for quite some time, thanks.
I don't like the cameras on the 400-series highways, either. Those are the product of Ontario's Conservative government.
I wonder if anyone else is bothering to read this thread at this point or if it's just us girls?
The fact that had f*cked in the white house is not a crime;
Are there really people out there who think that this was the real issue? Sure, it's the issue that garnered the majority of the press, but the cause of that exposure was Paula Jones' sexual harrassment suit.
Laws never seem to be as important when your own guy is breaking them, huh?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
By all means, lets compare the two:
One committed a crime, immediately admitted to it, expressed regret, paid the fine, took all the responsibility upon himself, and eliminated the source of the problem (by quitting drinking) way before ever seeking elected office. I'd dare to add that he would never criticize the officer who arrested him.
The other committed a crime (sexual harrassment), spent millions of others' tax dollars trying to cover it up in addition to other indiscretions that were unearthed during the proceedings, used his unique position in America's government to spin the issue while stonewalling for months, refused to display the sense of shame over being caught red-handed that even Nixon demonstrated, set the example of getting away with a crime that you and I would be put in jail for, and had the unmitigated nerve to expect an apology from the people who were just doing their jobs prosecuting him for a crime. All that was accomplished while he held the highest government office in the USA.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Socialism increases the revenue of the government by increasing taxes on entrepreneurs, corporations, etc.
It's easy to see that by increasing that revenue, they increase their own power.
Note the utter irony when Gore talks about "Fighting for the people against the powerful". As Microsoft has learned, the US government is the most powerful entity in this nation. Al Gore's enormous spending plans would only increase the need for the government to increase its tax-generated revenue - and thus its power.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Why is it that we overlook the intent in this case? Because the we favour the result.
But this same sort of logic is what makes politics so bad. Rather than do what is right, the things that are politically useful are done. Sometimes these things are bad, and everyone yells. Other times these things are good, and no one comments because, heck, those politican guys are doing something I believe in!
Let's not apply double standards. They should be doing what is morally right and not what is politically right, all the time.
But of course, they can't for some reason or another, which is either based around money and greed, or voter polls.
And that's politics.
Be ashamed of myself for voting for him? No. Perhaps you should take a hard look at yourself to figure out why it is you have such a stanch, unwavering view. Which also happens to correlate with zealous media coverage.
If you had really investigated Clinton's record of politics and his past, you should know that he's one of the more scholarly presidents we have ever had. And in my opinion, one of the brightest. I also think he did just fine with our country in the last 8 years.
He did have personal failings, but I would not count those against his performance record as President nor with his ability to lead my country.
If morality is part of your criteria of merit for consideration of a president, then I suggest you set out to discover that morality is arbitrary.
I'd also like to point out that you've decided to take the low road to personal attacks instead of discussing the issue of whether the law was good or bad, etc.
As far as this law goes, I agree with what other people have been saying here: it's a bad thing. Stuff like this should not have ever gotten this far in the first place. The fact that Clinton had to be our saving grace for individual freedom reflects badly to me.
Politicians who are eager to please those who are enthusiastic about anti-crime initiatives should not overlook individual rights in favor of broad sweeping policing powers. Except in this case, my guess is that it wasn't the people who influenced it's creation, it was more likely some paranoid government agencies.
I would also speculate that part of the problem lies with the level of education of our representatives. With your average politician being computer illiterate and hearing of stuff like "Cyber Crime", "Cyber Terrorism", "Microsoft is Hacked" it doesn't surprise me that many are quick to approve laws that affect people and circumstances they know nothing about.
Today was just a day fading into another-Counting Crows
Here in UK, if you do any work with any degree of national importance, gov or corporate, you sign The Offical Secrets Act. This act also covers installations, documents, letters, memos, everything. There is currently a case involving David Shayler, a former MI5 analyst and operative, who released details of some botched MI5 and 6 operations, particularly against Gadaffi, and now faces three counts of breaking this act. What you have in the US now sounds a lot like this situation. Although protection of official secrets and operations is necessary, however much we dislike being kept in the dark "for our own good", his statements catalogue a habitual abuse of the act by those in power to avoid oversight and democratic control. His cause has a pretty big online following, which unfortunately I haven't got time to post =). Google-ise his name and I'm sure you'll find some.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Media motivated or not, it's a good move. He's basically recognizing the fact that although unfortunatly some things that really shouldn't get leaked do, that it's very important that some things that shouldn't be classified and are don't stay that way. I don't know that I've ever praised the decision of any politician I've ever seen in any office, but this one seems good, and there's actually a press statement explaining. And that he explains that he recognizes that additional protections may be necessary to protect orders of national security, whatever those might be, that things that do not affect national security even -should- be leaked. That's cool.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
While, as oldzoot said, leaks "have probably helped prevent things from being even worse than they are with regards to bureaucratic excess and violations of laws and personal freedoms", one must at the same time be cognizant of the harm that can be wrought by certain information falling into the wrong hands. A prime instance being the identities of undercover agents (DEA, FBI, whatever) in the field. Far too often people decrying secrecy are unaware or uninterested in the consequences of such disclosure.
Blowing the whistle on excesses and illegalities is one thing; endangering national security is another... secrecy legislation has to recognize those two facts and walk a very fine line indeed. That being said, it is good that this recent proposal was kicked back into the spawning pool.
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
True and not true -- there are three, and they deal with different kinds of classified data.
18 USC 793 -- disclosure of National Defense Information; namely, anything classified under DoD rules. In order to violate this section, you don't have to have lawful access to classified info; you only have to disclose "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to those "not entitled to receive it". Punishment: 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 798 -- Codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. The difference in this one, as I've heard it explained, is that 793 requires you to know that it's classified and that you're willfully violating the law. Under this law, it's enough that you disclose the information at all. Punishment, 10 years, $250,000.
18 USC 794 -- The big one: the espionage statute. To be in violation of this law, you have to willfully deliver "information relating to the national defense" to a foreign government or agent of a foreign power, "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States." The bar to be in violation of this law is very high -- while disclosure of any kind of information could result in prosecution under this statute, prosecution must prove you knew the U.S. would be harmed. That's not the case in the previous two sections. Punishment: Death, or life imprisonment.
This latest act would effectively lower the bar for prosecution under the first two sections: Even if the material isn't directly defense-related, and even if you don't have a clearance to hold it yourself, and regardless of intent, you could still be prosecuted for releasing any information the gov't considers classified, and be subject to the same penalties.
Thus, whistleblowers disclosing non-defense, non-crypto classified information, who would have a much harder time being prosecuted under 793 and 798, have a lot more to fear from this act. Espionage disclosures still are and have always been illegal under 794, and you could always make a case for reckless endagerment or other laws if someone gets killed because of your actions.
I commend President Clinton for opposing it -- I was surprised to see that he did.
(A big ,,!,, to the socialist who modded down my last post. Hypocrits, all pompous about "freedom of speech" until someone disagrees with you.)
Ha! Rational distribution of national assets... rational to the unelected bureacrats who run the government monopolies. If you disagree with them, well, that's too damn bad. Unless you've got money or ambition, then you can go to America.
Ah, so you fear the poor, and think if you give them goodies they'll leave you alone? Gee, how enlightened. I bet you'd fight the school choice bill we're going to vote on Tuesday here in Michigan that'd break the government education monopoly and give the "underclass" a decent shot at a real education.
And here's a clue: they aren't "resources", they're people, and if you have to set up barriers to keep them from running away, YOU HAVE A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM! Gotta love that Soviet thinking: "if we don't build the Berlin Wall all the smart people will leave!"
Clinton is, as usual, not at all interested in the rights of anyone but himself. The biggest reason he vetoed this was that it would have further criminalized his administration's very deliberate leaks of secret military technologies to the Chinese (missiles, nuclear, etc.) and Russians (stealth tech, etc.), all of which are quite well-documented now...
Don't ever believe this man does anything for other than his own interest...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I'm gratified to see a politician refusing on principle to extend government's powers
... especially for Clinton.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
In a world where everyone (especially the gummnt ) did everything correctly and constitutionally, perhaps we would not need leaks, in the real world, they have probably helped prevent things from being even worse than they are with regards to bureaucratic excess and violations of laws and personal freedoms.
enough is too much
If your on the ACLU's action email list (free registration), they alert you to important violations of free speech and other laws and bills, then they provide a link where u can send a free fax (or email) to your representative, senator, president, etc. The last email I received asked us to fax the President and ask him to veto this bill.
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
It's ironic in more ways than I can describe that you would defend this law claiming the "protection of lives" when part of the subject of this post was an article by a gentleman who did what he did to prevent the wanton disregard for american lives...
It should never be illegal for somebody to expose government miss-management/corruption/lies/incompetence even if they are hidden in a shroud of Top Secret secrecy.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
The Constitution lays out how the Government works. Any attempt to do things differently would require an Amendment, which is a lot harder to pass than a regular law (thank goodness).
As we speak, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Missouri's representatives. The Missouri people passed a reform: "when you're elected, you must sign this form saying you'll do everything in your power to get congressional term limits passed." If they don't sign the form, a black mark appears on their re-election ballot. If they go to Washington and don't write term limits stuff, or vote against term limits stuff, another black mark. I have a feeling the Supreme Court will empathize with the voters, but strike it down; once elected, Constituents cannot force the hand of the Representative so strongly.
Smaller elements of process, such as whether House votes are done by voice or are held accountable, may be changable. I hope so. C-SPAN has gone a long way to exposing the process to so many more people, but it's no where near enough.
[
This law is much more broad than that. Read the text yourself. It says nothing about causing death or endangering American lives. It basically perpetually silences anyone who has ever had classified information about that information unless they go and obtain "authorization" to reveal it. The flaw I believe lies in the fact that a ton of information is "classified" and this bill bears no sensistivity to the nature of the degree or the type of information.
Last year, I recall that my amazing Journalism teacher(who almost idolizes Mr. Ellsburg) was able to get Mr. Ellsburg in to talk to us about sundry things (this was during our unit on Vietnam). It was a very interesting experience. As I recall, this was in the middle of the IMF/World Bank protests here in the DC area, and Mr. Ellsburg was in town for them. He urged us all to go out and stand up for our rights, get arrested, commit acts of civil disobedience, etc.
And this to a bunch of 10th graders. Either a really good thing or a really bad thing; I'm not sure.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself
Right wing propaganda. He committed perjury; he lied during an investigation on a matter unrelated to the actual investigation itself. He lied about an affair. Now how does this equate with breaking "every major law"?
I'm proud I voted for him; I'd do it again.
--
Losing your job or your clearance is one thing, and that can have a chilling effect, sure. But felony jail-time liability would have an even greater chilling effect on those occasional leaks that are important to a free society.
What Congress needs to do is look at the specific leak (it is said, I recall, to have had to do with bin Laden and the press revelation of electronic intercepts of his phone calls) which prompted this criminalization proposal, and craft a narrowly tailored offense to address it, if it was really the Congress's intent to deal with that particular situation (which it wasn't really, by the way, not in this election year with a lame duck Pres all concerned with his legacy and who was intentionally put into a political catch-22 when they timed this bill to arrive on his desk just when it did).
You can't depend on regulatory or prosecutorial discretion to take away the chilling effect of such a law, because you never know what kind of folks might get into power in the future some day, and who would put this kind of broad law to use. Read up on the various Sedition Acts which have been implemented at various times in our nation's past to see what I'm talking about.
I'm still not voting for his veep, but I am glad Clinton vetoed this law. Now, if only someone had screamed so loud before he signed the DMCA and the ATEDPA and the ...
Ed
I'm not so sure. That process was employed during the battle for direct election of senators (the constitution originally had them appointed by the legislature of their state), so presumably the Supreme Court thought it was ok, at least at one time. There's an essay on the battle for direct election of senators here. Unfortunately, that particular essay doesn't talk about the "black mark on the ballot" that some states employed.
I agree. However, it isn't enough to just sit passively and watch. To be really effective, you have to write to your representatives and let them know the consequences of their actions. An effective control system requires feedback.
By the way, I'd add a category of "bills sponsored" to your list. Those bills which a representative endorses, not just votes for, can tell you a lot about where his/her priorities are.
The reason this doesn't happen is because our politicians aren't honest about how they vote. They use public polling to discover popular opinion, run with that mentality, and once elected vote the way that curries the most favor at that time in that legislative body. Now sure a few don't but honestly, just 1 would be too many. So...how do we clean up this country (and specifically the legislative body)? Any ideas?
Never underestimate the power of the letter j
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
I think this speaks very strongly towards the nature of the openness of our country. In many situations, the national government chooses to keep certain information secret, supposedly to protect the state of the government, and its peoples. Now to state that any government should be completely open is a silly suggestion; there are many secrets that are worth keeping in order to ensure the security of the country. To be outright against such privacy in regards to the power of the state is ignorant in my opinion.
I do however understand the objections that arise in the present situation and in regards to how it has been handled in the recent past of this country. Some secrets that have been kept do not need keeping and corruption or political maneuvering to mask mistakes are most likely the cause of many of these. The fact that the recent deal with Russia was kept secret (albeit a part of the agreement which I cannot understand Russia caring about) in regards to sales to Iran of arms and other things including a submarine should not have been kept secret from the people of the U.S, much less the senate! This seems to be an attempt to mask a politically unfavored action. Luckily the media uncovered this story and we now know about it. But would you favor someone leaking information to the public regarding the military deployment of our factions in a hostile situation, and having the person who leaked that information not recieve major repercussions?
I think the government needs to reform its moral values before something like this bill passes but I don't think in a better situation federally, that it would be a bad thing.
Never underestimate the power of the letter j
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
This is good news. I have read it in www.epic.org
....
But the laws which needs to be changed are still there. The worrisome thing is that laws which violate some civil rights and others which give government agencies wide authorities are being made faster than they are blocked!!
The FBI has the right to detain an emigrant without revealing any evidence.
This happened with a guy in the US who was accused to be a terrorist. After three years in PRISON without knowing why he was held, it came out that the evidence was that his X-wife presented this false claim to the FBI. This is a true story.
In the Chinese scientist case, the data which he downloaded was not classified at that time. It was classified retrospectively!
This vito came in a good right time, but it is not enough.
The elections in the coming few days will decide a lot of things especially for civil rights, privacy, health,
It is too bad that Ralph Nader has no chance of getting there; the way I see it is that the more votes he gets, the more his voice will be heard and the better will be the outlook.
This kind of legislation is difficult to implement in practice. Unless someone signs a Non Disclosure Agreement and then releases information that he or she received while under the NDA, how could you prosecute? If the information leaked is not an exact copy of the classified information, who decides where the "dew point" is whereby information could actually be seen as having been "leaked"?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If I understand that article, however, there are no laws that currently apply to people who leak non-national-defense classified secrets.
So, basically, all this law is saying is that the same penalties that apply to one type of classified data also apply to other types of classified data.
It seems like nobody wants to admit that, from time to time, somebody leaks a story to a newspaper, the newspaper prints the story, and one or more real actual people get killed as a result. That's not very cool.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I personally would like to see some more comparative data on those "know your representatives" websites.
For example, lets take a bio from a fictitious Congressman Tony Schnell*:
Tony Schnell, Republican, Anystate
Serving Third Term as Congressman [list defeated opponents]
Further, with some per-visitor preferences, those sites could help you watchdog your own pet issues. "Mark voting records for/against NRA positions," "for/against affirmative-action," "for/against abortion rights," etc.
We're in a Republic, disguised as a Democracy. In either case, a well-informed constituency giving their congress careful attention is the best weapon against the grandstanding anti-progress that we see on Capitol Hill every day.
* Tony Schnell (R), one of the prime supporters of the infamous email tax legislation.
[
Reading Bill's message made me realize just how much I'm going to miss that guy. Of course, I'm speaking as a foreign observer who really couldn't care less how badly you yankees screw yourselves internally. (Just don't annex your buddies up here in Canada m'kay? We're all socialists and we'd throw USA's basically right-wing democratic process out of whack).
Anyway, since I don't have a personal stake in the internal policies of ye olde USA, I think I have a more detached view of the whole situation. Main think I've always liked about Mr. Clinton was his charisma and beautifully-crafted public statements. Before Clinton you really hadn't had a good presidential orator in quite some time.
Also, I'll always have a soft spot for Bill because he tried to do the right thing (Socialized Medicine) even though he must have known he'd never pull it off.
We can publish classified information, but, woe into those who would publish information on the inner workings of a DVD player. Oh well, at least we won this one.
Whenever I read about laws being created to cloak the U.S. government in even more secrecy than it already is, and/or to relieve U.S. citizens of previously held freedoms (for our own good, of course), I am reminded of my 8th grade history teacher (a very politically "right-wing" individual, I might add) who, in the early 1970's, stated his belief that the U.S. was slowly removing freedom from it's constitution while (at the time) the Soviet Union was slowly inserting freedom into it's "order". He predicted a time where both governments reached a common plateau in terms of citizen rights and freedoms. In 1989, of course, the Soviet Union dissolved. However, I am haunted by his prediction: The US govenment is slowly but surely removing freedoms from U.S. citizens by virtue of "The Drug War"(tm), The tremendous "need" for intellectual copyright protection, the need for the govenment to be able to conduct foreign affairs as it sees fit, without the bothersome input from the rank and file citizenship, etc. It is a sad time. I have no doubt Mr. Bush would sign this bill into law without hesitation. The erosion of freedoms has yet to be a campaign issue. Why?
For a white house that's inflicted (or tried to) a significant number of infringements on our rights to privacy, this is very refreshing to see. If you want to be more aware of when these kind of things come up, register at www.aclu.org for their action newsletter. I received an email about this last week and was able to send a fax to Clinton through their web site expressing my objection. You can often do the same when legislation harmful to privacy is considered in both the house and the senate, only the faxes go to your appropriate sen. or rep. Sign up!