Slashdot Mirror
Gonzales Says Publishing Leaks Is A Crime
loqi writes "The NY Times is reporting on a statement from US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declaring that journalists may be prosecuted by the federal government for publishing classified information. On the 1st amendment ramifications: "'But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'" So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?"
Slimey bastards! I wonder what the fallen in the September 11th terrorist outrages would make of this. The US government has repeatedly used their memory to justify secrecy right across government. It is now trying to use their memory to to silence people who whistle-blow on their deepest darkest secrets. Well fuck them!
Quite frankly, I couldn't give the faintest whiff of shit what the Attorney General has to say about the issue. The Constitution trumps everything, the Attorney General include, and it states in no uncertain terms which the rights of citizens of the United States retain for themselves:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see any exception for the state to keep secrets from the electorate. Bring the prosecutions and watch them fall one by one.
Simon
Now I've gotten my joke in, for those too lazy to install the firefox bugmenot extension here's the article text:
Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible
The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."
"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."
"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."
Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.
Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.
"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
So, according to the U.S. Attorney General, the first amendment is a great right, but it can't be allowed when it gets in the way of law enforcement. I wonder if he feels the same things about other Constitutional amendments which restrict law enforcement, like the fourth and fifth amendments. I'm sure that the people who wrote those Constitutional Amendments didn't really mean for them to limit the power of government (BTW, that's sarcasm...)
Of course, we really have to consider that the federal government should only be going after criminal activity when such criminal activity is actually present. Something cannot be a crime when the law which makes it a crime is not constitutional.
There is a reason why we have made freedom of the press a nearly absolute right. Throughout history we have seen that hiding the activities of government creates corruption, and even when the media is biased, we need them to be able to get the issues out to the public so that they can be discussed.
It is also interesting to see the philosophy involved in Gonzo's "Pass the Buck" stragegy. He wants to claim that it isn't the Bush administration that is going after the reporters, it's actually Congress that passed the laws which REQUIRE the Bush administration to go after the press.
I guess that what really bothers me is that good Republicans who should really know better, individuals who have long complained about the growing powers of the federal government, should be more concerned about this. They need to come to their senses and realize that Bush is not helping the ideologies that make the Republican Party, and they need to abandon him.
Nixon was run out of office not by Democrats, and not even by the Washington Post reporters. He was run out of office by fellow Republicans who came to him and told him that he had become an embarrassment, and it was time for him to resign. Modern day Republican leaders have to do the same thing and rid us of our modern day Nixon.
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
What I can't quote are "some statutes" that Mr. Gonzales is referring to. And, frankly, I don't give a damn what they say. There's nothing that could convince me to give up or sacrifice any part of the First Amendment.
I believe my government has a duty to protect the information that is important or sensitive. If the government fails to do adequately protect this information then it should not be illegal for an instution of the press to point it out. If by doing so they print the classified information then so be it. The people have a right to know the shortcomings of their government whether they be scandal or lack of security.
I fear that if they make this illegal, it will also be illegal to point out inadequacies of the government &, before we know it, the press will be unable to criticize the government. Releasing information of sensitivity is a form of criticism and should be treated as such.
My work here is dung.
"...journalists may be persecuted by the federal government for publishing classified information".
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
When the federal government invokes the "national security" card over and over again as it has in recent months and years, it is no longer national security that's at issue but abuse of power and the covering up of mistakes.
--Udo.
Outsource information leaking.
In an administration where universal deceit and lying is the norm, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Gonzales is nothing but a rubber stamp for this administration which is how W's puppetmasters like it.
It is when you are tested the most that you need to stick most by your principals. America is a democracy and come November we can all then start bitching about our new Democrat overlords which I for one am going to welcome.
The best thing about the American government is that it DOES correct itself. It may take time, but Americans do change for the better. Germany survived Hitler, we shall survive this...
Expecting the neo-con mod down in 3..2..1
The problem is this: the government is obviously having trouble trusting its people. It's that simple. If information leaks, go after the leaker. Once the information is out, it's out. Going after journalists is not exactly going to engender good will from the media. This has always been one of my biggest criticisms of the Republican party, that they can't handle the media at all.
This is not too different from how the Air Force and the Marine Corps handled the media in Iraq. The Air Force treated the media like a bunch of little kids and they they were not exactly portrayed in the best light. On the other hand, the Marines involved the media people reporting on them to the point of having them out in the field with real units. Result: the media with the Marines were much more open to the requests of the Marine leaders as to what could/could not be published and they painted the Marines in a much more positive light. Why? Becuase they felt like part of the team.
What Gonzales is doing is basically alienating the channel by which many many Americans receives their "information" every day. This is not exactly intelligent. I don't mean to say that the Republicans should kowtow to the media and or the Democrats (otherwise we would go from a 1.5 party system to a 0 party system), just that they need to not be stupid.
Here is the link to the leaked AT&T Court documents that were released on Wired this morning:
p df
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.
Abraham Lincoln incarcerated leakers and dissidents on Barges in the Patomac. This included reporters and Senators.
The federal government said that bloggers aren't real journalists. So, I guess they won't get prosecuted!
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
this story goes under the category "Bushit"
Maybe I'm wrong (and I'm no lawyer)... the question seems to not be whether reporting classified information is illegal, but whether acquiring that information is illegal. If you break the law to gain information, then share the information, it is the first action which could be considered criminal. The second action is relatively minor.
But do Slashdotters think the ends justify the means? ...that publicizing classified information has enough value to excuse the law-breaking necessary to acquire that information? Or even of such value that we want to change the laws that make the data acquisition illegal?
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
The "press" aren't super-citizens. They are no different than anyone else. They don't get to give themselves special immunity to laws that ordinary citizens must obey.
There's no ceremony, no initiation, no certification, license, or birthright to become a member of the press. I am a member of the press for publishing this opinion just as much as a NY Times writer. We are both entitled to the same rights and protections.
To say that the press can violate laws because they're the press is to say that anyone can violate the laws. It follows that the US maintaining national security secrets is unconstitutional when that secrecy is enforced. That's silly. Therefore, the press can be prosecuted, just like anyone else.
The US federal government is becoming too powerful, and it needs to stop.
I'm not sure who added the final blurb, "So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?", but that entirely reminded me recently of another "trump" made recently. "The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws."
I'm dead serious here. If the federal government keeps on their power trip fascism journey, well, they will be in for a rude awakening. This kind of government is one that will either start a civil war or a revolt by the people. I'm dead serious.
Once people's standard of living here goes down a few notches, which is already happening with the skyrocketing cost of housing. But as soon as people get to a point where they cannot afford the basics anymore, or when something like Social Security goes bust, we will loose faith in the government, and that will be it.
So, you feds, watch your step.
Wait--it's only okay for them to publish classified information if it embarrasses the (admittedly bloodly stupid) government, or needs to be released. Good thing we have honest, upstanding, selfless journalists to handle those decisions, then.
Good thinking, Slashdot.
Have we considered, perhaps, taking a more nuanced position?
~Idarubicin
Is it illegal then? Even if its just to get back at political rivals? Even if the white house says "go ahead and leak to the press"? That's not illegal, but non-white house leaks are? Can you spell "corruption"?
I knew you could...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Okay, if publishing leaks is a crime so it shall be to start a war based on false pretenses.
Any takers?
{crickets}
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I just can help it. WE HAVE TO GO AFTER THESE GUYS! GET OUT AND VOTE TO GET THIS ADMINISTRATION IMPEACHED BY THE ONLY MAJOR PARTY WHO HAS THE GUTS. VOTE DEMOCRATIC. I don't think very many people agree with every last thing the Dems stand for and do, but the administration and the asleep-at-the-switch congress are forcing our hands. To quote the Dude, "This aggression will not stand!"
Yes, it's obvious to anyone who's spent more than 2 years on this planet what Gonzales has in mind. Yes, we all know it's against anything that would be called "liberty" along any kind of definition.
Yes, it's still going to happen. Talking about it won't change a thing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That Rove is going to Jail after all? Truthout just posted that they may believe that Rove hasn't been indicted, so as we all know they lie maybe it is true after all?
My head is spinning.
I'm not trolling so please don't give me the -1 conservative mod. Honestly, someone please explain to me how this is different. I'm pretty sure whistleblowing is protected by some federal regulation. I don't see how releasing intelligence methods and secrets, and posting them publicly, constitutes whistleblowing.
soooo he knows the president can make anything classified :) like invisible WMDs , Marylin Morrow, Monica Lewinsky , the institutional apocalypse... in general the suppression and control of public information.
Orwellian
The general public know jackshit about anything. They are the GENERAL public for a reason. The general public generally do as they're told and believe what they are fed, these are NOT the people we want in control of the laws.
Sit the laws where they are fair. Not where Tom, Dick and Harry off the street thinks is right.
As for this journalists crap.. Well yea, lets just make it so mentioning the government in any negative way is not allowed any more. I mean most the world has an owner (or two-three people with guns claiming to be an owner) you can't really set up a new country/state any where and it's not like you can really leave America once you've been put on a watch list now is it?
I like muppets.
The bit where it says "unless Gonzales says so" at the end. Granted its written in Crayon, but it is a sacred document so you have to follow it to the letter.
What, have you been living in a cave for the last six years, or something?
Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
What does "Free" speech mean? Does Free mean the right of anybody to say anything anywhere at anytime? The Supreme court has said no.
Certain types of speech are not "free".
Classified information is definitely not defined as something that anybody can talk about. If it were true then the government would not be able to have any classified information.
Just something to think about. The logical conclusion to most radical positions (both on the right and left) usually end up on contradiction.
It shouldn't be lost on people that the Woodward and Bernstein's source was not a Nixon insider, but an FBI guy. How exactly did the FBI get the information? Did they get a memo? Or is that, maybe, Nixon could have been deposed without any help from the media whatsoever?
'But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,'
Yes. Yes it fucking can. How else is there a check to government bullshittery?
I welcome the days when we can vote these fucking idiots out of office, and I sincerely hope they don't fuck the country up any more than they already are. I have no desire to have fascism in my goddamned back yard, thankyouverymuch. GTFO.
I have to side with "it depends" group. If someone is publishing the nuclear launch codes, the names of our spy agents (or any other covert team, like Navy seals and their accomplishments), plans for a strategic strike, etc (basically something that can cost people their lives if the news got out) then I am for - yea your ass is going to jail for being a dick. This includes things like "we are investigating a known terrorist, and since you just published his face in the paper he went so far underground he won't even be able to find his asshole to wipe it after he takes a dump"...
I understand what the otherside is doing "but what if the gov't names granny apple as a terrorist when she really is a sweet old lady who gives people apples...who can help her if we cant talk about it." Well this is where the gov't is wrong and the journalist should be allowed.
We get in trouble when we speak of absolutes, and there are people on one side of the fence who say 100% 1st amendment right trumps. and people on the other side of the fence who say 100% National Security trumps. They are both wrong - it needs to be a depends. The journalist needs to use common sense, and the courts can prevail. If the journalist was doing something in the best act for our nation then kudos for him/her...if the jurnalist was only thinking about the Pulitzer Prize - well depending on the damage he/she may have caused they may be rightfully getting it post humously.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That you are in favor of allowing the mainstream media to publish troop locations and strategy on international news in a state of declared war? Some of this stuff is limited for a reason, you know.
...to the Freedom of speech.
...and for you nut balls who continue to ignore the facts, Vallerie Plame was NOT an active agent and her cover was NOT blown; go do your homework.
The government has the right to throw your ass in jail when you leak sensitive information that puts us all in Danger.
The Constitution is a document of Rights and Responsibilities, not a Document to give you carte-blanch freedoms.
If you don't like it, go find another country that gives you as many rights as this one does.
And I also find it funny all you Lib's forget that Clinton and Carter were doing the same thing this President is doing.. only they were Libs. Explain that one away!
The constitution was written by people who had to wrest their freedom from a corrupt and repressive government. The constitution is all about giving people the power to rise up against a government that attempts to repress them. The fact that George W. and his buddies hate the constitution proves that they are bent on removing our freedom.
So, as long as any illegal activity conducted by the government is given a classified status, there can not be any discovery of the crime by the people the government (used to) works for. So, if the president kills 50 people for sport and it is classified, anyone who ever tries to publish it will be guilty of an information crime. This is exactly the sort of thing that created public support for the revolutionary war, and the second one will be coming very soon. Especially when it becomes a crime to own weapons, and public meetings to organize are banned, and a Christian state develops, etc. But at least we have the SS and the Gestapo to keep track of citizens thinking about a revolution, and to keep the citizenry "clean".
Seems currently in the USA the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech...
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
We're talking about an administration that doesn't give a damn about the principles this country was founded upon, and believes that any and all rights should be suspended for the War on Terror. This is just a case of a gander having its goose cooked.
This administration in particular is a big fan of "when in doubt, redact it out" to avoid publicized miscues, or (more importantly) their own contempt for the Constitution and the People's rights. That's capitalized on purpose, mind you.
This isn't a "hey Geraldo's publishing troop movements!".
This is "hey, concerned patriots are telling everyone about our thought police! Punish anyone who gives him a voice!"
Transparency and freedom of the press are critically important for a democratic has already betrayed democratic ideals and have lost any credibility as leaders.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
So, when's Gonzo going to throw Bob Novak's ass in jail for publishing Plame's name? Wasn't her name learned through a "leak"? Facists.
I can't believe the extent of the civil liberties violations in my countries these days, Gonzales is essentially creating a culture where the media is a puppet to the state because if it publishes anything against them it is subject to prosecution. Is anyone now ready to protest this in a forum besides the internet? That is the only way anything will get done about it.
The Introduction to the Court Opinion on the New York Times Co. v. United States Case (the Pentagon Papers case) opens with:
There are some other choice tidbits in there... such as (emphasis added):
Hmm....
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Exactly, its the leaker who violates the laws, not the person reporting it. ANYONE should equally be able to quote that information on a blog, discuss it, debate it etc. without fear of reprisals (which is what this is).
Thats Freedom of Speech.
...we are preparing for the inevitable flood of Americans trying to cross our borders and claim political asylum here. Damn greasy round-eyed whitebacks, trying to steal our jobs!
It's amazing that you even think you're part of the political discourse with comments like this. Complaining that we should give all our secrets to our enemies and saying that a theocracy will develop if we don't isn't just uninformed, it's childish and petty as well.
Can't take a leak without getting persecuted.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
"If leeks can no longer be published"
Next thing you know cilantro will be banned, and its all down hill from there, onions, cabbage, where does it end...........
I saw one of the interviews Sunday adn Atty. General Gonzales was clearly uncomfortable discussing the issue and made a muddle of his otherwise clear case. Allow me to say some truths more bluntly than he did.
1. The Press isn't some sort of Church, with an annointed Priesthood set above the laws. Yes they may publish whatever they want without preclearing it with a government censor.... exactly the same as I am publishing this. But they have no more protection from the CONSEQUENCES of their actions than I do.
2. In exactly the same way as one must assume responsibility for their words when it comes to libel, slander and fraud, violating the secrecy laws should have consequences or those laws are meaningless and our society is no longer possible to maintain. So yes, a Free Press is essential to a Free People but there are some restrictions required to maintain the sort of advanced civilization needed to make a Free Press possible.
3. I have yet to see anything in these 'leaks' (I'd dare call it treason) that have advanced the cause of Freedom. Yes we bug the terrorists, even when they dial into or take a call from the US. And do you think we didn't bug German agents during WWII? Hell yes, inside and outside the US. That is War. Spying between nation states isn't the same as police work. Few also have a problem with the notion that the NSA might have done some interesting pattern analysis on calling records looking for stuff worth poking further into. If they went further without passing by a judge for a warrant I'd have a problem, but there isn't an accusation of that.
4. In light of 3, one must question the motives for making the leaks in the first place and whether it was for the express purpose of lending aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war is certainly a question worthy of asking. Because from where I sit it is either that or something that to my mind is even worse. That it was leaked in a base political effort to discredit the current administration. Now tearing at political enemies is normally ok, but there are limits. Endangering the national secutity in wartime to do it, and having way over half of the opposition party supporting such actions means we are probably too far lost to have much hope for survival. If the moonbats are simply being decieved by a few traitors we might can make it through, but if most of them are so far lost as to think losing the war would be an acceptable price of removing "Chimpy McBushHitler" from office and have thrown their lot in with Bin Laden we are doomed.
Democrat delenda est
If you knowingly post information that will get someone killed... are you any different than the person who put the gun up to the victims head and pulled the trigger?
You democrat slashdot hippies certainly are peaceloving bunch... even though you tend to promote courses of action that are small minded and "sound" good on an individual basis.
The 1st admendment says that the government can't stop you from speaking your opinion. It doesn't say that you can leak classified information and claim "free speech." It's just like you can't scream "fire" in a crowded place if there's not one--your right to free speech doesn't let you go around doing stuff that hurts others.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The people who leak the information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - the ability to maintain secrets is essential to national security. If you look at the history of warfare, and it's obvious that intelligence is what wins wars, not weapons. People should be going to prison for leaking classified information. Unfortunately, the leakers tend to be politicians or high level government officials appointed by politicians, and they don't like the embarrasment of prison. The problem is that it's so much more convenient to blame the press for their problems.
What else would you expect from the idiot that said software piracy funds terrorists?
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Somehow, I feel like news papers will go after this quote, and continue to release leaks.
I hope so, anyways. For our (Americans) sake.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
How everyone notices this trend when the party they like is out of power and never when its in power.
Mod it as flame bait, but it he admitted this in an NPR interview a couple of months back -- 48 hours is just too short since people aren't in the office on weekends.
When it reaches the Supreme Court it should face quite a bit of scrutiny and get whacked. I will be very interested to see which side each justice takes. The ones with a more "world view" will probably be lienent on the AG.
As far as control of the government by one party or another. It really does work best when one side controls the Congress and the other controls the Presidency. That way they spend more time trying to screw each other instead of the public. Right now we have too few Democrats and too few Republicans in the Congress. Yeah I worded that right, what we have is way too many politicians.
(ps. neo-con - if only half the people who used the term knew what it means)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Will DOJ retroactively prosecute these two for their coverage of Watergate? That was based on a whole slew of leaks from concerned Nixon administration officials, including Mark Felt. Had it not been for their reporting, we would not have known about the massive "dirty tricks" operations against political opponents and "enemies" (including top Democratic rivals for the Presidency) conducted out of the White House, which was the type of strike against democracy we normally associate with budding democracies in the third world.
Instead of all this bullshit about freedom of speech, they should prevent this under receiving stolen property. If all this information that's being published is "Secret" then it must have been STOLEN. If it wasn't stolen, but given away, then they need to tighten down on who handles the data and make it so it IS illegal for them to give out the data. So now you can prosecute the leaker under theft, and the publisher for receiving stolen property. And how do they know if it's stolen? If it's "Secret" and you have it, then it was STOLEN DAMNIT!
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
-- ac at work
R
Stuff that matters: circuitbreakers, vacuum-cleaners coffee makers, calculators generators, matching salt+pepper shakers
If anything, it's commercial software that funds terrorists. If all software was available for free, and freely distributable, then terrorists would only be able to get funding if they provided support for that software. :P
Richard Nixon
Yes, the press can do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to find the truth.
Truth trumps all.
"Security" is an illusion at best. We could all drop dead today for no reason whatsoever. We could also win a zillion dollars. These people need a Vicodin or something...
barack to the future?
A government that places itself above the law is no longer a democracy or a republic but the very tyranny our founding fathers feared the most. It is the first power of a totalitarian regime that can conceal its illegal actions, and arrest anyone who finds out about them. And since it can classify anything as secret and claim that no one can touch them, they can do anything they want in the pursuit of "national security." Maybe if they say it enough times, the people will be stupid enough to believe that it's ok for our government to be above the law, or exempt from it.
All hail King George.
So Robert Novak reporting leaked (by yet unnamed White House staff) information about Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent fits into which category?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Well the Terrorist wanted American society to change. Looks like their best foot soldiers are the AG and W's administration. The governments ability to decide what "activity" needs to be kept secret is violating every tennet of a democratic society. Even Ceasar was loved when he dissolved the senate, but then came Nero et al.
It there ANYTHING that would be off limits?
If the plans for D-day where in your hands, would you publish?
If the parade route for Hillary Clinton in your hands?
How about plans for an H-bomb?
Would it be ok to publish a list of CIA operatives names and addresses?
How about the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal?
It there ANYTHING that would be off limits?
To paraphrase T.S.Elliot, democracy ends not with a bang but a whimper.
Where are the Democrats? The outraged Senators and Congressmen/women? Where are the people in the streets?
The Democrats know their time is coming and can't wait to get their hairy paws on the lovely Big Brother infrastructure the Republicans have so carefully constructed. And all of this in order to "protect our freedoms" and "maintain law and order". And everyone is too busy earning a crust or obsessing with self to care.
I'm truly sorry for you all. Your country is f*cked. The wonderful republic the founders created now rests in ashes. Maybe you really do need to lose something in order to appreciate it.
You're kidding, right? When was the last time Americans revolted and brought down a government? Can you seriously see it happen nowadays?
I'm dead serious here. Say what you will about housing costs, but bitching and sucking it up is still a hell of a lot more comfortable than getting your ass in gear and marching on Washington DC. So long as you can have a doublecheese for $1 and American Idol keeps going, the latter is NOT going to happen.
The Americans aren't the French. Deal.
(And yes, I'm aware of the irony of that.)
OK, so what the Attorney General is saying here is that a well-established and extremely core right to freedom of the press that is clearly enumerated in the First Amendment can be trumped by a non-existant so-called "right" for the government to prosecute criminals that people may only WANT to see?
I'm sorry, I thought I was living in a country based on laws, the rule of law, and upon a foundation of the constitution of our nation which all federal government officers and military personal have sworn to uphold. NOT a place where one man's personal interpretations of the feelings of the population somehow create new "rights" that somehow are rights fot he federal government. There are no federal government rights in the constitution, there are rights fo PEOPLE, there are LIMITATIONS for government.
Mayve when the people, through their elected representatives, actually push through amendments that clearly revoke freedom of the press and also push forward with clarity the "right" for the federal government to prosecute crimes at any cost to liberty than Gonzalez might be in the right on this one, but until then he's talking about something even he admits is at best only something people "would like to have" - as in not the law currently.
I, for one, am sick of the Bush administration and its lawyers trampling rights and rewriting laws baased on fast and loose or extremely technical interpretations of laws that are essentially legal loopholes. What they are doing is making a mockery of the law. They are searching statutes for minute differences in wordings that can be exploited to permit or disallow whatever is politically advantageous for them. And most of these interpretations seem to fly in the face of the spirit of the laws they are citing. If congress had truly intended these laws to be interpreted as is being done then they would have clearly enumerated these gotchas, not secretly imbedded them in tricky wording waiting for some clever lawyer to discover congress' "true intention" of the law that somehow went unnoticed for years. The Loophole Legality policy of the Bush admin has been used to justify everything from torture, to renditions, to suspension of haebois corpus to restrictions on speech at just about every level (I don't care how the law is interpretted, our founders never intended freedom of speech to be satisified by locking all dissenting protestors in a big cage far away from the politicians ala the RNC & DNC 'freedom of speech areas'). This has to stop. The SCOTUS needs to wake up and start telling the Attorney General that him, his crony interpreters, and his policies can go take a flying leap as THEY and not him are the interpretters of the consititution and the rights granted therein. As in the actual rights granted and the laws that pertain to them, not phantom rights that people would supposedly like to see but aren't actually in law.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
So, Cheney can de classify something at will, tell no one it is de classified, then encourage his minions to "leak" it to the press and then Gonzalles can prosecute the same pree who wrote abote the "leaked" information. This administration is pure evil. It is one scandal after another. Impeach the bastard!
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.htm l
Full evidence of NSA wiretapping that AT&T has been doing on the entire US portion of Internet since 2003, with documents and stuff. This is going to become big news today. I'll be disappointed in the US if public outcry fails to shut this Big Brother stuff down.
I haven't seen this question asked elsewhere, and IANAL, so I'll ask it here. Is it really possible to classify an illegal program? If the program is in fact illegal, then it seems to me it cannot legally be classified. If that's true, and I'd love to see the governemt justify disagreement, then the leak of the NSA domestic syping program can't be a crime. Even in wartime and under extreme circumstances, the law of the land is still valid.
Let's say the goverment had a super secret program, like the development of the stealth in the eighties. Then let's say that as a test, the DoD decided to bomb a real civilian town in New Jersey, clearly an illegal program. It would not, should not, be illegal to report that the town was bombed by a secret DoD aircraft. Granted, that situation is far more henious in detail than the NSA wiretapping, but the principal is the same.
Military secrets do not grant a license to kill, steal, or otherwise disregard the law of the land, whose ultimate definition is the Constitution. Those who violate the Constitution, especially those who have sworn a public oath to to uphold the Constitution, must be held accountable.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
*What if*
What if Hillary Clinton was elected President in 2008? What do you think she would do to the 2nd Amendment, given George W. Bush's prescedence of reinterpretting the Bill of Rights?
Which will be more "relevant" to "national security" in 2012? Your "privacy rights", or some nutjob arab with an AK-47? This is an easy sell.
Do you see the game you are playing? Can you even understand how dangerous it is?
This isn't about Bush v. Kerry, Republican v. Democrat, Red v. Blue. This is about creating the position of king here in America. I never thought I would see the day when a majority of my peers would think this way. I am still simply dumbfounded.
barack to the future?
Times like these require action.
Who can we support and donate $$ to if we want to fight this kind of thing? This community bought a full page ad for Firefox, so surely we can make some impact when our basic freedoms are being squashed.
I'll update my ACLU membership, even though I think they are too partisan towards the Democrat party.
What other organizations stand against a government that is slowly combining the worst aspects of '50s-style social repression with 1984 intrusion into our lives?
Here are two
ACLU
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Ah, the Politibureau apologists, how we luff them.
That is the approximate location of the enemy.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Two question for people:
1) Should the government be allowed to keep any secrets? If so, what are they allowed to do to enforce those secrets and punish people who reveal them?
2) Should ANY group be allowed to keep secrets from the public? If not, then why do we happily accept our news coming from "anonymous sources" that we cannot evaluate for bias or accuracy?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I am im the military, and i am a little bit torn on this issue due to some reasons i will disclose in a second, but first i have to beg everyone to stop using the example of screaming fire in a crowded theatre, its fucking obnoxious. I can certainly see how its a terrible thing to limit the press, and their ability to report information to the general public. Furthermore i believe as well that its not a great idea to let the agency that will most likely be reported on (the govt) make the rules restricting the people reporting on them. There seems to be very few checks and balances in that system. I don't think that the government should be able to arrest a reporter who reports information the government deems "classified". In my eyes all this can lead to is the government labeling everything as classified and to hell with the press's ability to report on them. At the same time, as a soldier, if somehow information on my location gets leaked to the press and the press reports it, and i get blown up for it, well thats just not right, and that reporter has done a horrible thing. I guess it is hard for me to decide where i stand simply because i can see both sides of this issue in my life. We, the american people, need to get congress to craft a very clear and precise amendment on what exactly the govt wants to claim as "un-reportable" information.
When the "classified information" is actually just highly embarassing to the administration, then it's not at all equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's more like shouting "fire" when, well, there's a fire.
My book, podcast
i will be surprised if it gets meantioned at all by our government controlled media.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Of course, I feel I must inject a little intellectual rationalism into the debate...
US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Can disclosing secrets to the enemy be considered Treason?
Us Constitution Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law
(a) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
(b) or abridging the freedom of speech,
(c) or of the press;
(d) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is the /. audience so bold as to claim the press is guaranteed unrestricted printing of whatever they deem necessary? Does that also mean that I may say or do anthing in the name of religion? After all, if Congress may not make a law abridging the freedom of the press, then it can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion... and if the exercise of my religion calls for the display of laws such as, "Don't murder, lie, or steal" then it would be unconstitutional for one to claim otherwise.
Oh the hipocracy of the ACLU... but hey, they need to get paid somehow.
PS. I hope you have enjoyed reading this completely non-technical post.
Well I think the government should not have any secretes. In fact we should get rid of all security clearance. It is an insult to The Constitution to tell someone they cannot tell what they know to anyone they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want. That is what free speech is all about!
Well, it certainly is the job of prosecutors to go after people who have broken the law. But it is not properly the job of prosecutors to spend their time constructing convoluted and questionable legal arguments so they can jail more people. The rule of law requires that it be clear what the law says. It's the worst kind of prosecutorial malfeasance to turn the law into a pretzel so you can harrass people that Dubya finds inconvenient.
Oh the indignation....those vaunted guardians of liberty, the American press, might actually have to face criminal consequences for releasing classified documents.
Get off your moonbat perches and wake TFU. Classified documents are made so as part of the overall protection of this country. I don't want to see abuses of that privilege, but to scream that classified documents should be released to the world is just plain lunacy.
Bet those of you so outraged by the attempted subversion of the 1st amendment right by the left wing media would have no problem suppressing my right to keep and bear arms, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
1. Lying about reasons for invading sovereign nations - Okay
2. Holding U.S. citizens indefinitely without right of habeus corpus - Okay
3. Torturing prisoners - Okay
4. Eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' international calls without warrant - Okay
5. Tracking all calls made by every citizen within United States - Okay
6. Exercising 1st amendment right to free speech and possibly checking out-of-control abuse of Constitution by administration - Not Okay
Is that it?What, pray tell, is the difference between a "suspected terrorist" and an otherwise innocent citizen, if the courts have not decided they have done something wrong?
If they DO have enough probably cause to monitor them, why would it be difficult to get court approval?
I'm perfect in every way, except for my humility.
Just like the W administration. It is OK for people at the very TOP of the U.S. government to abuse their power and "leak" information in order to eliminate an unwanted source of information. Truthful information, information that went against the treacherous lies and deceitful "facts" being presented to the American people in order to support the mysterious goals of the current administration. However, it isn't OK for the journalists who receive the leak information to publish it? Or rather it is illegal only if it is a leak that is embarrasing to the W administration. If it is approved by the W or his masters, it is OK. I see now. What ever happened to "by the people, for the people"?
Since only those who classify information, are the only ones who know that it is classified, how is the journalist supposed to know what is classified information, and what isn't?
Proverbs 21:19
The problem as I see it is that anyone who "disagrees" with the current administration and has access to classified material can go out and anonymously leak that information with absolutely no repercussions. They leak to the press, the press reports the story, refuses to give up their sources siting freedom of the press and everyone goes home happy, except for those hurt by the leaked data.
For example, let's say there is an in-processing and interrogation facility somewhere in Iraq. It is where suspected insurgents are taken to decide if they are a threat and if they are, which public facility they should be taken to. Well, some soldier that is upset about his request for leave to see his mum gets rejected and leaks this information to the press. The next day, front page, is a story with pictures about a secret prison in Iraq. Within 12 hrs, the in-processing facility (secret prison) is overrun by insurgents and all American and Iraqi's working there are killed or kidnapped and tortured, all incoming prisoners are freed. Is the soldier responsible? Is he a whistle-blower or a turn-coat? What about the reporter who got all these people killed? He won't give up his source, siting freedom of the press.
Regardless of you opinion the current administration, the gov't has to have some way of investigating and prosecuting those who leak classified information.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
As for what the Army, or other armed services will do, we understand the Constitution even if the press and, it seems from the posters here, many of the citizens do not. Every year we review that document; it's nice to know what you are sworn to uphold and defend. I see no conflict here nor do I know of any other active, discharged, or retired service member who does. Treason is treason.
And since the originator of this topic is the whole NSA flap over monitoring international calls to possible terrorists, I should also point out that it came out in the Hayden hearings that every 'i' was dotted and every 't' crossed in following the established proecdures about Congressional notification for black programs, unlike what the hysterical idiots are saying. What's hilarious is that the most hysterical were briefed numerous times about the program (the Democratic leadership and intelligence committee members) yet they uttered nary a peep until it hit the New York Times. Sheesh! Talk about political posturing.
The program neither originated with Bush II (actually Echelon dates back to Carter) nor is it being misused as asserted. Sorry folks.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
just because a journalist claims priviledge does not actually make it a legal reality. There are a few press shield laws however those are not blanket immunity from discovering sources.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Gonzalez is missing the point! There is no 1st amendment conflict, because it is silly to go after a journalist for publishing information they are given.
The crime is not in the publishing, it is the leaking of the information to begin with. Punish the crime, not the downstream consequences!! If the information is CLASSIFIED then it is not available to the press, by definition, so there is no 1st amendment violation.
Same as the AT&T NSA thread - once the press has something, unless they violate copyright or plagiarize, they can print whatever they want under the 1st. The problem is not with the press, it is with whomever gave that information to the press.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
You may think this is nuts, but this is what the law says. This is one reason why there a frequent clash between authorities and journalists is over revealing sources. The *source* of the classified info has committed a crime, so journalists who conceal their sources are concealing evidence in a criminal investigation.
your analogy is faulted. If someone breaks into my home, steaks my secrets and gives them to someone else to be be pulished, they are guilty of breaking and entering. I may be arrested if those secrets indicade illegal activity, despite the method of abtaining them. I and the perp may be arrested. If the secrets were obtained by a third party from someone that lived in my house, say, my wife, then it is not theft, simply me being turned in for illegal activity.
Defense secrets should be kept secret, but what if the secrets are hiding illegal activity that needs to, no must, be exposed.
If the gvt. spying on legal protesters because of "national secrets" issues but is realy cracking down on its critics, would you want to know? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 5/155219/
If the gvt. (read NSA) is spying on American citizens who are living in America, wouldn't you want to know? (NSA is't chartered to do domestic spying)http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/121 6-01.htm/
If the gvt. is spying on/jailing reporters due to "some laws" in an effort to curtail their investigations into administration acrivities that may be illegal, wouldn't you wnat to know? http://judithmiller.org/news/p20050801.php/
If the gvt. gave specific reasons for going to war, and some of them may have been fabricated to convince the public, wouldn't you want to know?http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article= 35415/
If the gvt. were opening your mail because it came from overseas, wouldn't you want to know?Ifthegvt.wasreadingyouremailbecauseyouattende dananti-warprotestincollege,wouldn'tyouwanttoknow? Ifthegvt.wasreclassifyinghundredsofthousandsofdocu mentsthathadbeenpublishedforyearsordecades,wouldn' tyouwanttoknowwhy?Ifyouweresomehowonanoflylistandw ereinnowayaffailatedwithterroristsbutwereawellknow nwarprotester,wouldn'twanttoknowwhy?Ifthegvt.isspy ingoncitizenswithoutacourtorder(don'tgivethatbulls hitaboutorderstakingtoolong,theycangetaFISAorderth reedaysAFTERthespyinghasbeendone),wouldn'twouwantt oknow?Icouldgoon(andon),butyoushouldgettheideabyno w.Thegvt.shouldhavesecrets,butifthosesecretsarecov eringupillegalactivity,thepeoplehavearighttoknowan dthepresshasaobligationtotellthem.Thepresidenthasg reatpowerwhilewearewar,butisn'titinterestingthatwe areinaneverendingwaronterror.Nopoliticianwouldever endthewaronterroraslongasterrorsomewhereexists
Incidentally the plans for building your own nuclear weapon are readily available over at wikipedia.
n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_desig
(No Joke!)
For those people who have the patience to read an awful lot of complicated physics you may realise that the hard part is obtaining sufficient quantities of fissile material.
People who talk about restricting nuclear weapon design info are just demonstrating their own ignorance of exactly how easy it is to build a nuke.
I dont read
"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things." He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." George W. Bush, September 30th, 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030930-9.html
Perhaps someone else can provide a more reputable source to back this up.
...that the terrorists are not the only ones that "hate our freedom".
Slashdot's oh so insightful analysis.
Guess what folks? First Amendment rights are not, and have never been, absolute.
The fact that people are apparently unaware of that fact - and freak out when the Attorney General states the legally obvious - says more about (wilful?) ignorance on the part of some folks here, than it does about the supposed fascist ways of the current Administration.
Freedom of speech is meant to protect people from persecution. It is NOT meant to protect them from being accountable when they decide to share others secrets.
> So Robert Novak reporting leaked (by yet unnamed White House staff) information about Valerie Plame's identity
> as a CIA agent fits into which category?
Yes, Bush & Co. tried playing by Democrats rules and didn't do all that well. Good thing I wasn't President though, you really wouldn't have liked my solution to Idiot Joe "My wife is a secret agent!" Wilson and his traitorous bitch wife.
When Wilson was at his worst annoyance level I'd have made a couple of calls and got the facts (like Mrs. Wilson was at the Agency and had indeed sent him to Niger) and then made a very short statement to the press myself. Something on the order of "Wilson? That lying traitor? Well before you guys spew jizz over that moron anymore you might want to know a couple of facts. One: Despite what he might think, his superiors reading his report concluded it lent strength to their belief that Saddam had indeed tried to buy uranium. Two: Despite his protests to the contrary, his wife sent him to Niger. Three: This was part of an organized effort by a nest of old deadender leftists at the Agency to effect a change in policy if not an outright coup against my government. Four: Mrs. Wilson hasn't been overseas in years but at any rate there are no fears for her safety in light of this disclosure of her empployment at the Agency because she will be perfectly safe in federal prison. Five: if we can make an accessory or conspiracy charge stick on Mr. Wilson he will also get some "Pound me in the ass Federal Prison bitch lovin'."
Sorry moonbats, part of the bargain in making agents off limits to the normal press & political cutthroat world is that they don't write articles in the NYT (or let their useful idiot husbands do it for them), they don't write books, they don't become overt political agents. Wilson & Plame (and it is now clear, a large contingent at the CIA) were as much a part of the 2004 elections as Dan Rather & Michael Moore and if they seriously thought their identy would remain secret they are fools as well as traitors.
Personally I hope the rumors are true and the Goss -> Hayden switch represents a policy change from trying to reform the CIA to simply culling the few worth saving to other agencies then cutting CIA out of the loop and allowing it to rot.
Democrat delenda est
I love how so many headlines (especially here), are half-truths. This seems to be a very common tactic these days, and it's damn near double-speak.
The headline reads "Gonzales Say Publishing Leaks Is A Crime". OH! Who couldn't get behind being against something like that?
The problem is, they left something out. It should read "Gonzales Says Publishing Classified Information Is A Crime". BIG DIFFERENCE.
This is like the headlines you read about illegal immigration. Nearly all the reports leave out "illegal". So you get things like "So-and-So is against immigration of Mexicans", when it should read "So-and-So is against ILLEGAL immigration of Mexicans".
Twisting words like that is just dishonest. Besides that, it shows how very weak someone's argument is when they have to resort to things like that. They can't argue something based on facts, so they twist the words to make it look like it's something it's not.
And you thought nobody could be as insane as John Ashcroft.
What really bothers me is not the fact that a sitting attorney general of the United States could say something so antithetical to what this country is supposed to stand for - people say things all the time for all kinds of reasons.
What bothers me is that he had the brass to say it in _public_ in an interview. That means either he doesn't know any better or he thinks we don't.
Which do you think it is?
Well, it does say according to regulations and the UCMJ, which say that military personel must "obey lawful orders".
This Rove guy is really a genius. He's once again managed to change the subject. This had NOTHING to do with publishing defense or intelligence secrets. It IS about the federal government having illegal and anticonstitutional activities and hiding them beneath the defense secret charade.
:)
You say you're not trolling... I'll assume so and answer your post point by point.
I don't have the right to break into your house, steal your personal or buisness secrets, and post them in the newspaper.
Nobody is advocating that. What's missing in your analogy is the illegal/anticonstitutional factor. A better analogy is : Assume you rape kids in your basement and bury their bodies in your garden. Now if the pizza delivery guy or the housemaid sees something disturbing and tells the neighbors or the police, would you sue them for publishing your business secret?
Now I know that the government is different and that they are supposed to be accountable. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. But this is about intelligence and defense secrets.
No it's not. It's about the government violating the constitution.
If Klaus Fuchs published the blueprints on the atom bomb in the New York Times, I doubt he would be able to use the first amendment as a defense.
Bad analogy, once again. Developping the atom bomb is not a violation of the constitution. If it were the case, people would be allowed to reveal the fact that the government is pursuing an illegal program (which is different from publishing the actual blueprints)
I'm pretty sure whistleblowing is protected by some federal regulation.
Listen, I don't want to sound alarmist or anything. But if they're ready to limit the scope of the first amendment, I don't think some federal regulation will delay them for long.
I don't see how releasing intelligence methods and secrets, and posting them publicly, constitutes whistleblowing.
What constitued whistleblowing is the act of revealing illegal/anticonstitutional activities by the government. Now, if you allow the government to classify the mere fact that they're having these activities and to prevent anyone from only mentioning them, you actually allow them to ignore the constitution and the bill of right.
Really this Rove guy is a genius. He's shifted attention from the government trampling the constitution to the debate of deciding whether journalists are super citizens and should anyone be allowed to publish classified secrets. It's brilliant.
When I get home early and find my son with his hand in the cookie jar, he sometimes tries the Rovian defense : "But you were not supposed to be back before next hour!" Doesn't work so well with me. Maybe it's me, or maybe Rove is brighter than my son
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Look, we all know this isn't about leaking classified information. This is ALL about preventing the press from doing its job: keeping tabs on the president's administration. This administration has arguably stretched the law further than any in our history. They're illegally recording calls, going after journalists who expose their bullshit, lead us into a war that has now left more than 2,000 of our brave sons and daughters DEAD - simply because of a neocon vendetta, and countless other sickening atrocities.
This administration doesn't want the general public know that it has turned into a modern day Big Brother and is more incompetent than the nutcase who leads North Korea. At this point, I hope the press only ratchets it up a few notches and goes after Bush and his scumbag cronies even more so until they are out of office.
i'd just like to note that even though currently slashdot readers from usa can bash china for imprisoning journalists for publishing improper views, they are slowly moving towards similar situation.
removing freedoms one by one in small steps (throwing in a bunch of fear, usually from terrorists) is quite effective, as shown here.
big brother theories like 1984 or even more modern culture ones like deus ex makes me feel strange. things that seemed almost impossible and funny then are slowly coming to the country near you. or your country. not that many are noticing.
Rich
So, the idea that freedom of speech is some absolute right just isn't true, and has never really been.
It's not that the freedom of speech isn't (or is) absolute, it's that it also comes with responsibilities. If you yell FIRE in a theater and people die trying to get out, yes, you're partly responsible for their deaths. If, on the other hand, by yelling it you let people near the exits know about the fire ASAP and people exit the theater in the proper order, you might be thanked later.
If there's a fire, the owners would be glad it could be extinguished early, but if there wasn't, you're responsible for loss of revenue.
If you disclose the names/locations of secret agents, you're responsible for the situation they may find themselves in. But if the only thing a leak does is make the government look stupid(or criminal), you're a hero.
Are you saying?
1) It was right under Bush and Clinton both.
2) It was right under Bush and not right under Clinton.
3) It was not right under Bush and right under Clinton.
4) It was not right under Bush and Clinton both.
If you're saying anything but 1 or 4, you're a flaming hypocrite. If you're saying 1, then you're consisent but wrong.
If, instead, you're trying to undermine opposition for the position that the Bush administration is wrong for doing it by pointing out that Clinton did it too, then you're in for a rude surprise -- that doesn't work. That just makes us angry at Mr. Triangulation too. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually stand on loyalty to principles instead of loyalty to party or persons.
Also, while it's considered irresponsible for journalists to identify rape victims and out undercover cops, unless there's a court order to the contrary, there's no standing law to that effect that I'm aware of. I doubt it would hold up in federal court if there was one.
State secrets is another matter entirely, but I think there should be considerable leeway for when the state's secret is that it's violating the laws and the freedoms of its citizens. You CAN'T let it be any other way or else you truly have an unaccountable government which is the opposite of what a democracy is supposed to be. National security should not trump the human rights of its citizens.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I think everyone who voted for Bush should have to pay extra to help pay off the budget deficit. Why should the rest of be saddled with the debt of your bad choices?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I largely agree with the whole thing, except for one, and only ONE part.
It's not a Neo-Christo Facist country.
Christ has nothing to do with this any more than Mohammed really had anything to do with 9/11.
If you're going to attribute the "Religious Right" in this country with all of this, that's fair enough (I don't wholly believe that one, mind...). You probably ought to call it the right thing, however. If anything, it's a Fundamentalist Facist country- though I don't hold that this is the case (Yes, it's got problems. Yes, Bush's administration (and the staff thereof) have a HELL of a lot of explaining to do- most of what is going on is garbage of late... But is it really Fascist? Not yet... We've still got a ways to go to get there- and if you get enough good people to stand up instead of whining from the sidelines (and merely posting on Slashdot is standing on the sidelines and whining...) you can stem the tide towards Fascism, or even worse... Christ didn't have anything to do with what many attribute to him- this included. I fear he weeps over this, to be honest about it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
W 08'
"Terrorism is an inconsequential threat"
Depends - a country really cannot function normally unless political violence (of which terror tactics against the general population is perhaps the most potent kind) is curtailed and kept at an absolute minimum. Having city centers and landmarks get blown up with any regularity is a no-no if you want a working country.
It really doesn't matter much that more people die from cardiovascular disease or similar causes compared to terrorism (the death rate is steady and holding at 100%, after all...). This is especially true after the advent of the mass media - terrorism is after all about terrorizing the enemy into submission.
Also, it is worth noting that most Slashdotters moaning over, say, the USA PATRIOT act couldn't tell us what is actually in the act if their life depended on it. Even if Terrorism can be considered an "inconsequential threat" by the standards used by its opponents, I am quite interested in hearing why Patriot should be considered a "consequential threat" by the same standard.
The constitution tries to provide people with the power (not the right) to overthrow a corrupt government. A very clear example is that we have the right to bear arms. It tries to ensure that the citizens have weapons so that they can rise up against the government.
Oh, now I understand how the Bush Administration intends to befriend China, by becoming more like them! More and more it seems that the Bush Administration's ideas of what constitutes our freedoms and rights are whatever the government says they are. How is this different from China and similar governments we criticize all of the time? When the federal government puts itself above the Constitution, we join a long line of authoritarian governments throughout history. Thank you Mr. Gonzales for making that clear.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Let's start with Robert Novak!
Oh, wait...
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
This reminds me of the following exchange of Sir Thomas More from "A Man For All Seasons" set in the time of King Henry VIII.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The inward looking secretive nature of this administration pre-dates 9/11. I recall a complaint from a Republican congressman from the summer of 2001 that this administration was the slowest at responding to information since he took office in the 1960's. Most enquiries went unanswered.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Now... I wonder who took that word out of there, hmmmm?
The oath was changed in 1997, under then-President William Jefferson Clinton
Last I checked the FBI and CIA had word of these attacks and did nothing because of their refusal to cooperate with each other. I personally lost friends in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Some who worked there and one who was a firefighter. I know for a fact they would be against these so called laws. They would have wanted something positive to come of thier deaths not oppression and a war that has nothing to do with terrorism. They can say this is for the greater good all they want, but its a power grab pure and simple.
WTF?
What do you expect from a government that locks people up without trial (Guantanamo)? Innocent until proven guilty.
Stupid people will always cause loss of life, whether it be in the miliary of civilian arena. There is actually a diminishingly small number of conditions where leaked information published by the press could cost the life of a soldier. I would venture to say that you are far more likely to die due to random equipment failure than from an article leaked to the press and then subsequently published.
That argument notwithstanding, it is interesting that it seems the AG has targeted the press because he is unwilling or unable to prosecute the actual perpetrator of the "crime" - i.e. leaker of confidential information*. That is where the criminal act has occured and where the potential danger to American forces, in the rare cases it exists, lies.
It must be realized that this is a warning - a threat, if you will - to all press. Mr. Gonzales is attempting to cow the critical press into silence, and thereby reduce the public oversight of the government. Those wearing tinfoil hats will go apoplectic over the abuse of power and big-brother-like actions of this administration. They are not completely wrong, but everyone must understand that even the most liberal of heads of state want to do their job without oversight. Even President Carter admits he wanted less congressional meddling once he ascended to the top spot. What is concerning is that the current administration has put together a number of pieces which, along with advances in technology, have given them a very strong ability to enforce their threats. I'm not sure we've seen such a concentration of power behind a single leader since WWII. Aren't you glad we have the 10 year rule now?
I don't believe that the Supreme Court, even with its new additions, will look on this type of prosecution favorably. Still, simply the threat of prosecution, and the (temporary) loss of freedom while wading through the multi-year process of getting to the Supremem Court will, indeed, have a chilling effect on the press. It may be minor, but every editor (and press corporation legal team) will have this statement from Mr. Gonzales in the back of his mind when he or she reviews copy. And in that way, Mr. Gonzales has achieved a portion, or perhaps all, of his purpose without ever penning an indictment.
*It should be remembered that an item of information may not be classified for the purpose of hiding an unlawful activity. Yes, I have held a clearance. No, you may not know to what level or for what purpose.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Gees people, George doesn't seem think it's that big of a problem and that's good enough for me. .
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Bush may not be an exact reincarnation of either Hiter or Stalin but still be a political danger. Some of the more important similarities are the methods used to consolidate power, including methods used by their movements. E.g. 9/11 and the Reichstag Fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Or maybe scapegoating: the Christian Nationalist movement has been vilifying homosexuals in order to unify their base and draw in other fundamentalists. Previously, Southern Baptists focused their hatred on Jews and Blacks and Catholics. But this was counterproductive to expanding the movement -- there are a lot of very right-wing Catholics in the USA, excluding them limits the growth and power of the movement. Focusing on a smaller minority is a good political move for them, and the Chancellor would be proud.
Hitler and Stalin were both evil. But investing and consolidating power in their executive positions was what really enabled them to do serious harm on a global scale. And that is what we have to defend against today, not just against W, but any potential incumbent of the White House.
I am not a crackpot.
I don't know about 'fascism', but we entered a police state the second the president asserted the right to break the law, and wasn't impeached. Police state==executive branch can break the law and ignore the courts==government operated by unchecked law enforcement==government can lock people up without trial==government can spy on people without a warrant
I don't know what the defination of 'fascism' or 'dictatorship' is, but we are in a police state right now.
Period.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A right is something a person has. A power is something to goverment can do. The Constitution outlines how rights are a check on powers.
The fact that the Attorney General of the US can even talk about the trade off of the first amendment rights against the right of the federal government shows how deeply he, and the President he works for, misunderstand the basic tenents of a constitutional republic.
Some problems with your statements:
Hitler did not have to invent a terrorist organisation called the Trust (or "the Base", or whatever) and did not blame it to be responsible for any act of violence against Nazi Germany.
That's a rather bold statement to claim that Bush invented Al Qaeda. I would point out that there are documents referring to the organization from the Clinton era at least, and one of the first briefings that Bush received was about the threat of "Al Qida" and Osama bin Laden. The organization has legitimately existed for well over a decade before 2000 and was behind several terrorist attacks before 9-11.
Also, Reichstag Fire.
Hitler did not use of the phrase "Who is not with us, is against us" on a daily basis. He did not speak it with thick southern accent either.
Maybe not specifically, but his propoganda minister famously declared that all you need to get a country to go to war is to say that they are under attack and to denounce the pacifists for their "lack of patriotism." That's very clearly a "with us or against us" attitude.
Also, HItler was from southern Germany, FYI. He was originally from Austria but grew up in a variety of southern German cities.
Actually, Echelon has existed for a quite a while. I remember original references back to Harvester. (Much more than just Bush and Clinton.)
Furthermore, Eschelon and others listened to international calls...not internal US call.
And I can't see how reporting classified information is a crime. If it was, whomever published about Valerie Plame would be in jail (They're not) and I wouldn't know about Eschelon and others.
Nope...this admistration is just a little bit different.
AFAIK the guy is full of it and he knows it. The current judicial standard is that prior restraint can only be granted if publication would harm national security. That is a very different standard than "Classified" and the government has to prove that national security would be harmed.
All he is trying to do is intimidate the press. Waste of time, nothing here to see, move along.
The Army has a historical list of the versions of the oath that have existed since its origin. The words "lawful orders" don't appear in any of them.
All the statistics showed that excluding 9/11, the various power grabs were followed by more people being killed by terrorists. So they stopped putting out the annual report...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Umm... it already happened (in the 1930's) and people didn't "loose faith in the goverment". They asked for more government involvement in society and they got it. They asked for more FBI to control the mob, and they got it. They asked for the FBI to control communist and fascist agitiators and they got it. History has pretty much shown that when this country gets into an economic bind, they ask for and get more government.
BTW.. the article's little passing shot of "So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?" is pure flamebait and trolling for arguments. The 1st amendment has never been interpreted to allow publication of state secrets.
And before somebody digs out the Pentagon Papers, read the wiki on that case here -Pentagon Papers and here - NY Times v. US. First, that case is not binding precedent because there was no single opinion of the court, other than a per curiam upholding of the lower court's rejection of an injunction. Second, the legal question at issue was one of "prior restraint". Did the government meet the burden of proof to get an injuction to stop publication? The answer in that particular case was "no", not in that particular instance. But that did preclude the government from meeting the burden of proof (which BTW is very high) in other cases. In other words, the Pentagon Papers case did not establish an absolute 1st amendment right to publish state secrets or an absolute prohibition on prior restraint.
The legal question of prior restaint given in the Pentagons Papers case is moot and inapplicable in this case anyway since the articles are already published. So now the question is , what laws are applicable for divulging state secrets and do they apply in this case?
.. for the Government to violate your Privacy. They should be going after themselves.. but .. oh, no.. lets just change the laws instead.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Carnivore? Okay, that's reltaviely recent--and very limited in scope, it's site-specific--but Echelon has existed for a very, very long time.
What's that, the new Just-in-Time bullshit statement delivery system?
I could tell you; but it might get me thrown in jail.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
This story involves the destruction of a building, the immediate declaration of enemies, the torture of suspects. This all happened in 1933, folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Cowards who value their lives more than their freedoms are the fundamental building blocks -- the foundation -- upon which every house of tyrants is built. If you are seriously arguing that the rights of the people to be secure in the persons or to have the actions of their government made accountable and open to them are less important than their so-called safety, then you are a morally treasonous coward. You are the brick and mortar of a police state, and I grieve that my country has made so many of you.
Or, as Patrick Henry -- one the men instrumental in both the revolution and in pushing for the adoption of the Bill of Rights specifically to limit the power of the federal goverment -- said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That is the point. Why is there such a bigger deal made of the use of these programs now than compared to the past, especially when Clinton did the most to advance their use?
title 18, sec 798
And for the 90% of slashdot that's too lazy to look, here's the meat of this code: and according to this, its been around since 1998... so before you jump on the ever-popular bush+cronies bash wagon, why don't you take a look to see *when* it was you lost your civil rights... you'll find they've been slowly chopped away at for a long time, by democrats and republicans alike.
* Hitler did not have to invent a terrorist organisation called the Trust (or "the Base", or whatever) and did not blame it to be responsible for any act of violence against Nazi Germany.
Hitler used the threat of communism
* Hitler did not use of the phrase "Who is not with us, is against us" on a daily basis. He did not speak it with thick southern accent either.
Hitler was not a good orator. Many of his public tirades were practically unintelligable.
* Hitler did not blame every country he disliked to be planning an outrage against the "Peacefull folks of the Third Reich".
He blamed the Jews. And the trade unions. And the communists...
* Hitler did not play a simpleton to appease the crowds. In fact the Nazi propaganda machine tried to paint him smarter and more talented than he really was.
I'm sure George isn't acting when he comes across as a bumbling fool.
This is the end. We should all move to russia now. I wonder if all the other countries that we brought democracy to look at us and laugh. I know the communists do, they said that you can't run a country with too much freedom and by god they were right. That 200 and some years we spent speaking our own minds and writing down our own thoughts and pissing on stupid politicians was a waste of time,
now the true meaning of representative republic is rearing it's ugly head. In a way it really is our fault, we have sat back and let other people run our lives for us because we were too busy working or playing to care about what our government was doing. There is still time to beat this into submission.
You need to start now because if they choke the right to free speech we are really done for. We must flood the DOJ with emails telling them that we see what they are trying to do, they don't need the kind of secrets they are trying to keep hidden, they certainly never have a trump for freedom of the press, and failure to abide by the constitution in it's entirety is cause for a little prosecution
against our esteemed Attorney General.
When I took the oath in January, 1986, there was no mention of "lawful" orders. However, the UCMJ covers that point quite succinctly.
-h-
Note that that is only the enlistment oath. Officers swear only to defend the Constitution - as well they should. It's actually almost identical to the Congressional and Presidential oaths.
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This makes Ashcroft's religious fanaticism and messiah complex seem rather quaint now doesn't it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"The Man Behind Hitler" airs today--the story of the Goebbels, Hitler's communications genius. The name of the series is "The American Experience," which these days seems horribly appropriate...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goebbels/index.html
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The day the feral government decided to enforce secrecy rules was the day it sealed its destiny to become a criminal organization, and guarranteed the failure of democracy. Only evil occurs in secrecy, and effective democracy is impossible without an informed electorate.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I think start manufacturing guillotines because I can see that we are going to need them pretty soon. I find it amusing that they use law when it suits their purpose but circumvent it when it doesn't. I am sure that there is a law against warrentless tapping of American citizens, torture, or suspension of Miranda rights somewhere on the books. I think Gonzales should sit back, relax, and chase pedophiles or something. He definitely barking up the wrong tree when he threatens free press.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Classified information shouldn't be leaked in the first place. It is unethical to publish it. Everyone down the line should be held accountable.
"lose lips sink ships." Nice little saying from the 40s. Someone went and blabbed their mouth and a got a bunch of sailors killed. If some reporter goes and writes about something that gets people killed then I say go ahead and prosecute. But likewise they shouldn't be using the law to keep every little tidbit of government information locked up.
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
The answer is as simple as it is obvious. "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the freedom of the press." Thus there can be no law that abridges the freedom of the press. If every person in Congress voted in favor, and the President signs it, then all those people have violated their oaths of office. As such they were not duly appointed officers at the time that they voted in favor. Hence the piece of paper with the offending words is not a law.
Of course, there's a much more reasonable solution - the judicial can simply say, "umm, no - go read the first ammendment again."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This is not a valid argument. Just because Clinton did something doesn't make it right. Your goal with that kind of arguement is to imply that outrage over the NSA spying on us is simply partisan sniping. It isn't. People are outraged because this is outrageous. If the constitution makes it to hard to enforce the law and protect the country tough shit. That's one of the downsides to living in a free society. Just like having to deal with neo-nazis marching down main street. We can make exceptions to freedom.
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
we don't need those rights anyway. the new and improved usa.
yea, we're fucked. bush has asserted (and backed by gonzo) that the executive branch is above the law, above the constitution, hell above everyone else.
look at it this way; we had our reichstag fire (911), we have our gipsies (mexicans), we have the ss (dhs), hell, all that's missing is rounding up the illegals and sending them to the camps. if you think the cur goc has followed the plan this far to stop, you are more insane than they are.
anon because i don't want to be on another fucking list of ppl to surveil.
Press Code of Ethics (Associated Press)
Associated Press Managing Editors. Code of Ethics. 1995
http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/apme.htm
Associated Press Managing Editors
Code of Ethics
Revised and Adopted 1995
These principles are a model against which news and editorial staff members can measure their performance.
They have been formulated in the belief that newspapers and the people who produce them should adhere to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct.
The public's right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests.
No statement of principles can prescribe decisions governing every situation. Common sense and good judgment are required in applying ethical principles to newspaper realities. As new technologies evolve, these principles can help guide editors to insure the credibility of the news and information they provide. Individual newspapers are encouraged to augment these APME guidelines more specifically to their own situations.
RESPONSIBILITY
The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent.
Truth is its guiding principle.
It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.
The newspaper should serve as a constructive critic of all segments of society. It should reasonably reflect, in staffing and coverage, its diverse constituencies.
It should vigorously expose wrongdoing, duplicity or misuse of power, public or private. Editorially, it should advocate needed reform and innovation in the public interest. News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained.
The newspaper should uphold the right of free speech and freedom of the press and should respect the individual's right to privacy. The newspaper should fight vigorously for public access to news of government through open meetings and records.
ACCURACY
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.
INTEGRITY
The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions. Editorials and expressions of personal opinion by reporters and editors should be clearly labeled. Advertising should be differentiated from news.
The newspaper should report the news laws without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups.
It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals. Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.
The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises.
The newspaper should not plagiarize words or images.
INDEPENDENCE
The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.
Newspapers should accept nothing of value from news sources or others outside the profession. Gifts and free or reduced-rate travel, entertainment, products and lodging should not be accepted. Expenses in connection with news reporting should be paid by the newspaper. Special favors and special tr
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.
...) explicitly trump any and all laws by design. There can be no accommodation of law (much less a stretched intrepretation of a law) by a right (much less a right listed first for a reason).
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
I think is most certainly must be the case that 'that right' trumps over the 'right that Americans would like to see' because first, I doubt very many people would like the government to have Gonzales' particular intrepretation of that right, and second, unless it is written in the Constitution or follows clearly there-from, it is a law, not a right. And rights enumerated in the Constitution (Congress shall make no law
If Gonzales, Bush and Congress really think the American people want them to have the Constitutional right to muzzle journalists they should have no objection to proposing just such an amendment to the Constitution. RIGHT NOW. The resulting brouhaha might just make the last two years of BS worthwhile.
That's the Declaration, not the Constitution.
It is not because we are more secure.
If you remember some of the goals spelled out by Osama. First Osama wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia. Bush pulled our military out.
He wanted to goad us into war on their turf. The bombings of US interests were unsuccessful, Clinton didn't take the bait. He used law enforcement instead of the military. Out of frustration the planned a big attack that would get our attention. Bush took the bait and invaded Afghanistan. A limited war in Afghanistan is not quite what he wanted, but it seemed to keep him satisfied.
Where bush went wrong was his invasion of Iraq. bush has delivered beyond Osama's wildest wet dream. The longer we are there, the better for Osama's agenda (drain our treasury, weakening our military, and weakening us world wide). As long as bush delivers what Osama wants, we will not be invaded.
Back on topic
What is going on is a power grab. Cheney is a big believer in an imperial president (Read up on Leo Strauss and the neo conservatives). Cheney and his fellow neo cons believe in a society far different from what is spelled out in our constitution. They want a dictatorship. The term "decider" is a newspeak word for dictator. People should have taken note when bush openly stated his support of a dictatorship back in Dec 18 2000.
Gonzo's pronouncement is not a surprise to us in the trenches. We have been watching the neo cons working toward a Straussian inspired police state. They didn't need the threats when they had control of the media. His threats are a sign they are losing control.
We all need to get informed and get involved. Time is running out. Maybe leaks should not hit the media first, they should be spread to tens of thousands first, then published. That way there will be too many people to imprison.
When they threatened legal action against the people of Blackbox Voting, we spread the data all over the world. They couldn't stop us, there were too many of us. Rep Dennis Kucinich went as far as publishing the data on his website and dared the junta to come after him.
Resist and stay free
photosMy Photostream
"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. (*) ME 2:225
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Use of computers and telecom _in general_ increased exponentially under his watch, so it's a little disingenuous to blame him for the government following right with the rest of the world. But, I find it puzzling that simultaneously people slam Clinton for doing nothing to cover for indadequacies and then slam him for doing too much to cover for excesses. Which is it? How could he have done nothing and too much of the same thing? Hmm?
There's a bigger deal made about this now because the Cold War is over and terrorism, while dangerous, is a FAR less ominous threat, for the most part practically insignificant--even including the possibility of using nuclear weapons--than something where one guy just doing his job could wipe out the entire human race with the push of a button. Oddly enough, the anniversary of when that one man's hestiation literally saved the world was yesterday.
THAT is what ECHELON was built to intercept. The reason this is getting so much heat is that the honeymoon of the 90's is over and people are starting to question the repurposing of these program because they realize the proportionality is way, way out of whack compared to the threat they were originally intended to counter.
you are absolutely different from the person who did the killing; but the issue isn't posting stuff that gets people killed -- it is about posting stuff that is embarrassing to the government. You can also make an argument that if the information *wasn't* posted, then more longer-term serious damage would be done.
Followed this from RSS headline only to discover it wasn't about the criminalisation of toilet cams.
I've come to the conclusion that law enforcement is just a bunch of people with pimples all over their asses who get mad when someone points & says, "Hey, Joe's got pimples all over his ass !"
Rather than being thankfull to the person who was kind enough to let them know they had pimples all over their ass in the case they weren't aware they had pimples all over their ass (least likely), or be thankfull that the journalists have provided a public service by warning everyone else that they have pimples all over their ass, they get mad & completely ignore the fact that they indeed, have pimples all over their ass.
Law enforcement, if you are reading this, you should pay attention to thoose pimples on your ass from now on.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
If we lived on the planet of Vulcan where pure logic rules, you are correct. However, here on Earth emotions trump logic. Terrorism, by its definition is fear. Fear of random, horrifying, deadly violence against your family and friends and countrymen.
Terrorism IS consequential. Its results are much more than a dead fireman in New York, or a dead child in a Jeruselam market.
If we ran the numbers, 1 assasinated man would not be worthy of starting World War I.
If we ran the numbers, 1 dying woman in Florida would not dominate the media attention for weeks
If we ran the numbers, 1 crucified man would not crumble empires and change the world.
The numbers are meaningless, people react with emotion. The feel fear. They also feel an incredibly strong, compelling emotion for justice and to make things right. I do not mock this, I salute it.
When there are 6+ billion people on the planet, do you really want someone to 'run the numbers' to determine if your life is worthwhile?
Yes, yes, yes. Spot on. Thanks! I'll come back to this thread to mod you up if I get mod points soon enough. This is an EXCELLENT point. Do you think you could possibly make it an Ask Slashdot, for better visibility? It'd be worth it. Thanks.
Here at slashdot I like to think that many of us are pretty smart. What I want to do is use our collective power to push forth our agenda. Generally speaking, we all pretty much disagree with Gonzales and how this administration is attacking the 1st and 4th ammendments. There are so many of us here, I was thinking that maybe someone can think of a way that all of us, as a group, can make more of a difference than just express our outrage to each other. It doesn't necessarily need to be about money (but it can).
It can be as simple as all of us going to another website and posting the highest rated opinions from slashdot onto their website so we wouldn't just be preaching to the quire. The money route can also be taken, every time a story is printed about an attack on the constitution, we all donate $5 to EFF. I don't know, what do you guys think? Should we sit around and cry or do something about it?
United we stand.
One important point to note is that free speech does not trump all. For example, libel and slander are both illegal despite the first amendment. So while it is an important right, there is precedent for other considerations overruling free speech.
>We aren't under the constant threat of global annihilation like we used to be.
Actually, you've just grown acclimated to it. It's still there, same as it always was.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Transparency and freedom of the press are critically important for a democratic has already betrayed democratic ideals and have lost any credibility as leaders.
should have read:
Transparency and freedom of the press are critically important for a democratic republic. The current administration has already betrayed democratic ideals and have lost any credibility as leaders.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
now what do you have to say?
Hey - thanks again to all of you who voted for Bush. Lemme guess, some of you even have stickers that say "Vote Freedom First."
Neat!
Now, what will be interesting is all the spin of "how this is really good for America." I can just see some of the responses "Security through obscurity is a good thing, because. Uh, the Bible... er no, King George decrees it!"
Bush is a corrupt clown. If you voted for him in the last election, and don't like what he's doing now - please don't vote in the next election. For anyone. It's obvious you don't know what you're doing.
"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
then secure the border and prosecute the 10-20 million illegal immigrants WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW, MR OBLIGATION!
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
americans want to see guys you like out office... let's hope so. don't confuse your power grab as being supported by the people...
btw, *when* all this presidential power gets misused, i can only hope *you* are the first target... let us all know how gitmo feels... alrighty, g?
you lie so badly, gonzalez... go ahead and stick this up your database!
Not the other way around. In the US We The People are supposed to be served by the government that We The People have oversight and control of directily and through our representatives. Increasing the Executive works without even Congressional oversight and the Judicial becomes its tool in doing whatever it wishes including blatantly flaunting the law instead of being a check upon its power. This administration especially has played fast and loose with the law and been much more closed about its activities. If it deigns to give any excuse at all to We The People it hides behind a mutter of "National Security" or "War on Terror". Now we have the Attorney General claiming that what information that does leek out to the purported masters of the government, the People, is illegal and that all concerned including reporters will be prosecuted for telling us what is actually going on. This is utterly contemptible and outrageous. It will not stand!
It is a claim that we did not deserve to know that our government is illegally spying on us, a claim that we did not deserve to know that our government is using torture by sending detainees overseas for that purpose. If We The People and our representatives do not know what our purported servant is up to then how are we to exercise our authority? How are we to keep government power, especially Executive, from growing unchecked and destorying us?
I mean, really, how many more times to these guys have to violate Constitutional rights before we get the picture?
Sure, if you're cynical.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Adlai Stevenson, our UN Ambassador, divulged top secret photos of Soviet missile installations to demonstrate why the US was on the verge of invading Cuba. The photos were declassified at President Kennedy's order.
Classification is an executive branch process and can be undone by the chief executive.
This legal process is an external law, imposed by the legislative branch.
Congress' power to constrain the executive branch is limited. In 1998, a California Congressman, Tom Campbell, sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. Clinton was clearly past the 60 day limit provided for by the act but continued the war in Kosovo without Congress' explicit authorization as mandated by the WPA.
In the end, it didn't matter. The case was dismissed because the judge said that Congress was sending mixed messages. The courts have tended to side with the executive branch when there's ever been a claim of the president breaking the law. Congress' power over the executive branch is constrained because the framers of the Constitution didn't want the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch to have unilateral sway.
Judge Gonzales -
"When our guys do it - good.
When you guys do it - bad."
"But this one goes to 11!"
...at least this administration is competent enough to catch a journalist... -lol-
i can see th escorecard now...
5 journalists in jail...
0 osama bin ladens in jail...
grrrrreat going guys.
th eincompetence and arrogance of this group of little whiner wannabes is astounding... the republicans wanted control... and now look what they've done... i thought clinton was bad fomenting the biggest stock market bubble in history...
bush and th epubs make clinton look good, and made it look easy.
i hope the courts kick this administration square in their *ss.
btw, this is probably a manipulation tactic more than anything... "we have your phone numbers... we can prosecute... are you scared yet? we hope so. we want to scare you... terrorists showed us fear works wonders... so we use it now..."
is when people like you who are supposed to be enforcing the law are the ones that are VIOLATING IT!
"We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
You have an obligation to OBEY the law as well! Your boss has sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. Protecting our national security is important, but protecting our freedom is even more important.
The police are under the executive branch. When the President signs a law, he can make a 'signing statement'. This gives direction to the people in the executive branch for following the law. These 'signing statements' have been used to *IGNORE* certain parts of laws passed by congress. Bush has given more 'signing statements' than any other President in history.
4 /30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
This includes whistleblower laws. He's basically ignoring them.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/0
Remember that Gonzales was on the short list of possible Supreme Court nominees after the Miers fiasco. How wonderful a Supreme Court justice would he be with such a flawed understanding of the constitution? He would have certainly been confirmed as easily as Alito was. This boggles the mind... Bush and company have two out of three of the branches of government currently under an iron fist, and with 5 of 9 of the justices leaning their way, it is very scary.
Do you have a source for that claim?
While the Constitution does not grant rights but protects them, I note that freedom of speech is an enumerated right, but the right to engage in commerce is not. Which rights are they assaulting again?
I like my mind. I don't choose to live a fearful existence. It's why I'm not a Christian anymore.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
The masterminds, like Bin Laden, are often wealthy crazy guys. The people they find to wear the exploding vests are poor however, and usually there is a sizeable sum being paid to their families in return for their "sacrifice". If their families were not mired in poverty, the bombers would be far more reluctant to wear things that go boom, and Osama would find himself very short on people to go die for him. I can guarantee you Osama himself isn't going to give it a shot.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
The problem with this administration is that everything is "secret" to them, from the number of people we're holding in prisons like Guantanamo to which oil executives made up Cheney's energy taskforce. And so far, the courts have been reticent to smack them down, and of course the GOP Congress wouldn't investigate Bush if videotapes were released showing he shot JFK, John Lennon, and MLK jr.
And I talk about it here: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/04/14/294/
I'm sick of that tired argument.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
ALL is black and white. It is ALWAYS a slipperly slope. ALL moves by the government are towards fascism. The government and Microsoft are ALWAYS bad. ALL religious people are nuts and illogical (Descartes be dammed). ALL bills will become law (or so the coverage here seems to think). ALL surveillance is bad. ALL government actions are not to be trusted. ALL journalists (except those from the right, of course) are to be trusted.
Only a Slashdotter deals in such absolutes...
(Later, Karma)
Niiiiice. I ought to frame that. /applause/
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Your points are well stated. Too bad you had to start you post with that childish "Bzzzt" business.
Slashdot posters are often self-rightous and immature, undercutting their own arguments with their obnoxious tone. Your post is actually much less annoying than most.
You at least refrained from tacking on personal attacks, and kept your arguments clean after that initial sideswipe on the parent's intelligence. Thanks for that.
"So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate..."
This is where your 2nd ammendment rights come in to play.
From my cold dead hands.
Really? I have lived in Sweden for a few years and in science it is trivial to hire someone from outside the EU. The essential part is that the job agreement (for a job requiring a higher education) should be made in advance, so you can't just come to Sweden and start looking for a job.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Prosecute the leakers.
They signed the non-disclosure agreement. They broke the law.
Let's see how committed they are to their "principles" with a jail-term hanging over their head.
What?
While I believe the actions going after the "whistleblowers" in this case may be quite overzealous. They did release classified information, and that has always been wrong. Whether or not that information should be classified is debatable, and whether or not the government should be collecting it is also debatable. But anyone charged can have that debate during their trial.
That debate is pointless if the law explicitly states that state secrets trump press freedom in all cases. The Chilling Effect is already present and all that is left is for the brave to sacrifice themselves needlessly. I believe that the balance of power should always be in the favor of the people and not in favor of the appointed guardians of the people.
If the Rosenbergs had given the details on the bomb to a newspaper to be printed, instead of handing it over to the Soviets, do you think they should have been protected just because a newspaper has a right to publish under the first amendment?
No, in that case the secret of the state was a particular weapons technology. That we had such a device was already public knowledge. The people in fact had a right to know that we had the bomb once it was used. The implementation details of how to make such a weapon however did not need to be as it was not a significant threat to the liberty of the people to be deprived of such knowledge. No political party or movement could be persecuted or intimidated and democracy is not threatened by nuclear weapon implementation details.
That's an essential difference between these two example. However, a program that spies on the activity of Americans that was kept secret from the people is another thing because it is ripe for abuse. In this case, the state secret is that it is acting in a manner that is arguably counter to the interests of the people. That sort of secret should never be kept.
Given the actions of the current administration against peace groups and the historical precident of what happened to civil rights leaders during the 1960s, I cannot trust the government not to ever use this power against its own citizens for "ends justify the means" purposes.
To let the executive branch should have the power to simply quash all public debate on its actions by slapping a security clearance on its programs is extremely dangerous. It's a Soviet-like power grab. To say that the people do not have a right to know (and thus be able to protest) some of the actions of their government is to forfit all your power over government in these areas. Any place in government where the people do not have control is a crack in the levee and will widen over time as our current adminstration is making more and more clear each day.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So basically, I see people here advocating that if I knew the launch codes for our nuclear weapons I should probably publish them, were I a journalist? Or that if I did I should escape prosecution? That's absurd.
This isn't a Bush Administration directive, people. It has always been thus.
"If the idiots in the theatre trample each other in a mad rush from a fire that doesn't even exist, it was their own stupidity and lack of clearheadedness that killed them, not the person shouting fire. If your reaction to the mere threat of danger is to hurt others, you are the culprit. "
We live in a society, we do not expect someone to lie to us and tell us there is a fire when there is not. If people could go around lying willy nilly our civilization would break down, hence the reason we have ethics.
If you truly believe in these true freedom of SPEECH, then you wouldn't mind someone releasing snake oil saying that it will cure AIDS when it really gives you a bacterial infection. Obviously its the stupid gullible peoples fault for buying that stuff right? NO, when people have their lives endangered they resort to irrational behavior. In the early 1900's radiation was considered a miracle cure for everything, lots of things were released such as irradiated water, radiation pills, xray devices that overexposed you to radiation. Of course in hindsight you obviously realize this was extremely silly, however you should realise people at the time did not know these things. However many people died from these. One extreme case being radium libido pills, people used them until one guy took around 1500 and his jaw dropped off.
You can not go and say "Ohh too bad its their own fault for not looking for smoke" because in a situation like that the fire could very well be in the outside, wtf are you going to do say "Ahh no smoke in here, ill just stay, heh heh stupid douchebag people not looking for smoke" And then get burned.
Society is built upon the conditions that we should be able to trust each other, thats also why Libel and Slander are not legally protected under free speech. Or why medical companies have to report to the FDA.
You being sick and tired means nothing, again as I said freedom of speech does not mean you are literally allowed to say whatever you want. Instead it implies that you have a freedom to ideas and the expression of those ideas without the interference of the government. Certain things however are NOT allowed to be spoken such as FIRE in a theater or Slander.
That's a good point. A lot of the hijacked on 9/11 just sat by and waited for it to end, because that's what the government-published common wisdom said to do at the time. Once people had a clue what was going on, Flight 93 happened. There could easily have been 4 Flight 93s on 9/11. Or, if everyone had been forewarned as the government was, perhaps the planes wouldn't even have been successfully hijacked. The hijacked fought the hijackers on Flight 93 after the plane had already been hijacked, if they had done it while the hijacking was in progress the hijacking probably would not have been successful.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
A right and a privilege - Learn the difference
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Your radium pills example proves my first point, that people lie all the time and you need to think for yourself. However, the argument is about yelling fire in a crowded theatre is irrelevant again, because this is not something easily falsifiable like "Do I smell smoke?". And the laws about yelling fire in a crowded theatre were on the books back then, and did nothing to stop it. So I'm not sure what your point is other than to extend an already poor metaphor.
If the fire is outside, the person yelling could inform the theatre of that. "Hey! There is a fire outside! That way. Everybody, you go this way." It would be morally irresponsible to report a true disaster without giving additional helpful information. And the additional data of the fire's location would lend greatly to the credibility of yelling "fire". But if I just hear some random dude yell "Fire" in a theatre -- i AM indeed going to sit tight for a couple of minutes, see what everyone ELSE does (because in a herd setting often times survival comes from doing the OPPOSITTE of what everyone else is doing -- wait and see what exit they clog, and then choose a different exit.) I am NOT going to trample people to death when there's no real fire. And if I do, it's my own damn fault, not the messenger.
Now, if there really is a fire, is trampling people to get out first wrong? I don't think it is legally. It's self-defense, or more specifically self-preservation. The issue of people getting trampled is only an issue if THERE IS NO FIRE. Trampling someone to death over fiction is wrong, and it's not the messenger.
To make a thinly-stretched metaphor of my own, we are currently trampling Iraqi civilians based on the administration's intelligence services screaming "Fire" in a crowded Middle East political arena. Because everyone "did not expect someone to lie to us and tell us there is a fire [in Iraq] when there is not", we are now there, trampling civilians, on a daily basis, over a fire that did not exist. The problem is that the military machine has to obey its intelligence without questioning or thinking for itself. Of course, a military SHOULD work that way, but an individual human being should take things into consideration before injuring others.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I disagree vehimently There is absolutely no proof that totalitarian governments are "more safe" for the populace than free ones. Leaving aside the people killed, tortured, ... terrorized, by the governments themselves there is no proof that external attackers will be any less able to attack.
While it may not have been so easy to rent a U-Haul in soviet Russia try telling the victims of the Russian Mafia that they were "safer". At the end of east gernamny an estimates 1 in 6 members of the population worked for the Stasi and yet the country still fell and crimes still occurred including crimes by "terrorists" in this case people who opposed the state. Consider places in Central America where the populace is, or was, choosing between a violent state, and violent "terrorists".
In reality the perceived "safety" of totalitarian states come soley from their control of information. Citizens of those states may hear less about the threats that they face but (as with parents who don't ask what their kids are up to online) they are no safer.
There is no tension between freedom and safety except in the minds of those who hate freedom.
In many ways this is always the case. "Terrorism" proceeds by attacking that which is weakest. In any arms race there are actions and reactions and if U-Hauls are banned then vans can be purchased, if not vans then semis. The problem is, as you note, much of what is being done presents the appearence of security more than actual security.
Well stop what? Stopping all guerilla warfare is different than stopping specific kinds of attacks. An individual determined attack can be thwarted and, by banning UHauls we could block all UHaul based attacks. However this would not prevent all attacks which is why we need to adapt our defences properly to each new threat. As I stated above however adapting our defences does not mean trashing our freedoms.
Srictly speaking we didn't invent Guerilla warfare. The style of warfare itself is probably as old as man (recent fights between illegal miners and native peoples in Brazil have taken on this form). The term itself comes from spain. Guerra is war Guerrilos (small warrirors) were people who fought a personal, individual war against the French during Napeoleon's occupation of Spain. As much as the British love to hold up Wellington as the savior of Spain it was the Guerrillos who casually slaughtered every french solder who went out in groups smaller than 10, who destroyed their chattel, and slashed throats in the dark that made his victory possible. By the end of the war it was impossible for the French to send supplies anywhere because any such supply train (unless it was guarded by a full column of infantry) wouldn't make it. The behavior of the Spaniards made surrender to the British seem like a holiday.
We ourselves used this style of war very effectively du
Liberty comes at a cost. The citizens must understand the difference between exposing government corruption and committing an act of treason. clearly many of those supporting Bush haven't got a fucking clue. Look at what Bush has said in the last 6 years and compare it to what other fascist dictators have said. Clearly, Bush is a fascist dictator, who doesn't really believe in democracy or have the slightest historical knowledge of where it came from.
While morally i agree with you, i dont think that argument will go far when you are sitting in a cell, under 'detainment'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So journalists will be prosecuted for leaks, but Karl Rove won't? People who live in glass houses...
Surprised,
Sound
Concerned,
Admit
Nothing
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
It is not against the law to passively conceal evidence. Not telling someone what you know is not illegal. Lying about what you know or activily concealling avidence is obstruction of justice. So the key to this is just to keep you mouth shut.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
As one who's Karma was long ago smashed against the rocks of ignorance and intolerance that are the SlashLefties, ChePibe, I salute you!
I think the case of the Rosenburgs is especially interesting- given that the Soviet records provided NO evidence that Mr. Rosenburg was guilty of the crimes for which he was executed or that Ms Rosenburg was involved at all. There is however significant evidence that the testimony against the Rosenburgs was obtained under duress.
I do not live in fear of hell, or allow that fear to dictate how I live my life now. My religious beliefs, a mix of shamanism and paganism, do not condemn my lifestyle. I did not take on my religion for these reasons, but because it's what fits me best.
I do not fear non-existence. Should I cease to exist, then that is the way of things. Living in constant fear of dying, well, ironically, that is a thought that frightens me. I picture a caveman cringing under an outcropping of rock, terrified at the lightning and thunder, terrified of going out and hunting because of the wild animals out there, instead of facing his fear and advancing himself and his race.
I certainly don't fear a hackneyed concept of hellfire born out of the fear and ignorance of the Dark Ages, when religion and fear of hell and the afterlife was used by the Church to control the ignorant masses.
I couldn't be a Muslim for the same reason I couldn't be a Christian, I do not want to accept restrictions on my life for religious reasons. I don't want to pray five times a day; although if you are a Muslim, you do have a very good reason for it, it focuses the mind on service to Allah. In much the same way, I do not wish to be obligated to donate 10% of my income to the church; although this too has a good reason if you're a Christian, it effectively mandates charitable giving and even has a Bible story to back it up.
It is worth noting that, while I am not an atheist or devoid of deities to worship (I follow the lessons of Coyote, Fox, and Crow), I bear no emnity towards atheists. My opinion is that if you need an ancient book to tell you what is right and what is wrong, your moral compass is so fucked up that you aren't likely to listen. If you do not need an ancient book to tell you right from wrong, then you do not need religion to have a moral compass. Simple!
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
War machines that you purchased from the U.S.? Your aging, overtaxed population? Your desire to avoid conflicts at all costs?
I'm glad you liberals are finally figuring out how this works. Post 9/11, the only way to protect our constitution and secure our liberty is to violate both of those things.
It just doesn't. You're also more likely to have a heart attack than be killed by a serial murderer. Does this mean murders are inconsequential?
No, the nature of accident vs. intent puts terrorism in a different class.
A very common misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment is that a "reporter" or "publisher" cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting crime, conspiracy, impeding an investigation, etc.
The 1st Amendment does not, in any way, shape or form, create a self-proclaimed class of people who are above the law.
The 2st Amendment concerns freedom of speech, it does not grant freedom from responsibility or prosecution, regardless of the self-appointed press' claim to be more equal than everyone else.
Does anyone else think that maybe this is because there was a leak of something important in the government? Maybe some important or incriminating documents were lost, maybe someone threatened to go to the press? Could it be that they want to scare journalists from publishing whatever it was?
American citizens beware before it is too late...
for us others (like me in Europe) lets first bring these issues to public knowledge before our stupid EU me-too copycats start publishing their own big brother undiscussed undigested laws
...the GOVERNMENT exposes YOU
I do so enjoy listening to American trash paint an international community with the simplistic brush of your countrys transparant propoganda.
"You're all Democrats! Those assholes who voted for the Bloc and the NDP? Those who vote for partei biertrinkenter dÃnen? You Labour party assholes? YOU'RE ALL DEMOCRATS!"
You confirm the stereotypes, you ignoramus.
It's been a long time.
"'But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity,' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'" So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?"
That's not what he said. He said that our 1st Amendment rights don't trump the desire of the federal government to violate them. The fed has no right except that which is explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Any rights not explicitly assigned to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. That too, is in the Constitution. The federal government, much to the chagrin of the puppet Attorney General, has no right to violate any part of the Constitution, regardless of the circumstances we find ourselves in. To obtain rights not already guaranteed it, the government must propose and pass amendments to the Constitution, and that would require the approval of the people. Rather than run the risk of not receiving that approval, Bush and his lapdog Gonzales have seen fit to simply ignore the Constitution where that document's strictures have proven inconvenient.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
...the terrorists win. To the terrorist facillitators who have allowed this, enjoy your safety. Everyone who has cheerleaded the administration, congrats, you're helping the terrorists.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
It'll be like the Republicans during the last few years of the Clinton presidency.
Burn!
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
"A new poll shows that 66% of Americans think President Bush is doing a poor job of handling the war in Iraq. The remaining 34% think that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."
~Tina Fey, "Weekend Review"
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
They don't have a 2nd and think we're crazy for wanting one. Guess they need a V and a whole lot of Guy Fawkes masks.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
The Swedish law is there to ensure a minimum of governmental secrecy. What's so hard to understand about that? Why should a government employee be fireable for talking to the press?
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Let me turn that around on you. Is there any secret that our leaders want to keep, that you believe should be exposed?
There's a difference between causing an immediate threat to forces in the field (publishing troop movements) and discussing and exposing persons, acting under the imprimatur of Government, who are doing things they shouldn't be (widespread wiretapping and data mining).
If the activities are so innocuous, why are they so secret? Do you think that the fact that governments surveil is a deep dark secret, and we're giving the terrorists a clue by mentioning that fact in a newspaper?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
How can you tell if is a terrorist or not before it has been settled by a court of law? You magically know the truth?
Oh my god! We must jail everybody so we can put them on trial for terrorism! But wait! If everyone is a suspect, then we all must be jailed, and who will try us?
Of course, we don't just jail , we require some measure of evidence or reason for suspicion before can be sent to court. The same is true of surveillance. We can't put a great big fishing net out there and see what we catch, it's a waste of time and resources, and an invasion of privacy. We go for the people who give us a reason to suspect them, then we take that reason to the nice old judge in charge of handing out FISA secret court warrants, and then we can spy on them all we like. Easy!
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
i believe that i disagree with you about whether specifically this should be legal, though i can't say i've thought in depth about it, but there are 2 minor points i would like to make off the top of my head:
1. speaking as someone who had his apartment building burn down 6 months ago, fire in a building is not necessarily easily falsifiable, even if fire in a room is. building fires can still present an immediate and lethal danger, even if not immediately detectable from a particular room. the time that could be needed to falsify it might also put one beyond any hope of saving (now, this is not an endorsement of panic--panic invariably causes confusion and wastes time). this in response to your statement regarding medical cures: "it is very easy to falsify 'is this room really on fire?' It is not easy to falsify a medical cure without expensive medical studies. Apples and oranges. Totally bogus comparison."
2. let me preface this with saying that in general, i loathe stupidity, and often concur with the "let's let stupidity be its own punishment" point of view. however, the life that gets taken by the trampling may be that of someone who is NOT panicking, rather than one of those whose "own stupidity and lack of clearheadedness" has put into desperate motion. now, as to the where the responsibility lies, i suppose that that is up for debate.
i might draw comparisons between this situation and negligent homicides or (temporary?) insanity or good faith, and i might point out that a situation like this is generally the result of deliberate malice, but i'll leave it at glossing over them, as i'm sure you've heard it all before. let me also clarify that i'm very much a proponent of free speech/press/etc, so take my disagreement with you on this particular point at face value. i'm not trying to be pedantic, i merely feel that you've made some erroneous assumptions/assertions in your arguments.
When Judith Miller was in jail, the Repukes were talking about shield laws to keep journalists to testify as to what they know to secret grand juries. These people have no sense of appropriateness, only partisanship.
// include political retribution against CIA operatives here
Here is the guide regarding what you can leak and what you may not ethically
if (government_offials_breaking_law())
{
Leak( true );
}
else
{
Leak( false );
}
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
A whistleblower is someone who reports about law-breaking at his own peril. So those divulging the information about the illegal wiretaps by the NSA
Those who are leaking just for political or personal gain (like outing Valerie Plame) are the ones who are breaking the law.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
...fucked up beyond repair, I'm sorry. Sometimes, the terror comes from within.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
The president CAN make a signing statement. If he likes, he can even do a signing dance complete with silly hats. Neither institution has any basis under the constitution or the law.
Traditionally, signing statements have been a way for a president to define himself politically with respect to the law. He identifies the portions he is reluctant to while embracing the parts that he likes. It does NOT give the president to execute a line item veto on a bill. The president has NEVER had this authority, and neither does GW Bush regardless of how loudly Alberto Gonzalez might assert it.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Because there was so much pressure from the press to go after whoever leaked Valerie Plame ("classified" information, apparently), is it wrong for the government to apply the same rules for everything?
The whole push to go attack the Administration on Valerie Plame has now officially backfired on the press. They made their own bed, and now they have to sleep on it.
The government has no rights, only powers and responsibilities. The citizens have rights, rights which shall not be abridged by the government. Period.
I am curious what will be the tipping point for the American public to finally impeach this administration?
Leaking secrets is a crime. Period. Everyone who signs onto a sensitive position in government knows this; you undergo training and are told exactly what laws you will be violating if you leak confidential information. There's also the matter of signing agreements that you understand said facts.
If you are a journalist and you publish a secret document, you are party to a crime. You don't have the right to break the law, even if its an unpopular one. You don't have the right to be free from prosecution just because you're a journalist.
I know everyone hates Bush, myself included, but that doesn't mean that nations don't need to keep certain things confidential to protect themselves, the U.S. included.
The law is the law. Don't like it? Tough. Elect someone new and demand the laws be changed.
Pol Pot is seriously scary. I was in Cambodia recently and it just freaked the hell out of me. I read a really good book (it's not long, you could read it in two days or so, I did) called "Stay Alive My Son" by a guy named Pin Yathay, who survived the genocide.
Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge managed to kill Cambodians as quickly as Hitler killed Jews without the aid of technology (most Cambodians executed were bludgeoned to death, to save bullets). When you think about it, gassing a bunch of folks is rather similar to dropping a bomb on a city: you press a button in another room and people die, but you don't have to watch.
I wonder if the Nazi soldiers had had to personally beat each and every man, woman and child to death, watch them die, watch their blood and brains pool on the floor as the convulsed and defecated on themselves -- I wonder if they would have had the will to carry on.
The Rape of Nanjing is similarly frightening for this very reason. Raping and then bayonetting pregnant women? Jesus.
People are capable of some pretty twisted shit.
...but I'm not laughing.
How exactly does a reporter know when something is classified? I'm sure in some cases they might know, or at least have a good hunch that a story is some government secret, but they can't exactly ask the government, can they? For instance, if a reporter used sources outside the government to uncover prision camps in Europe, or repeated cases of extrodinary rendition, would the reporter be criminally liable even if they didn't know these activities were classified? Do journalists have to censor all potentially damning stories for fear that they're exposing some government secret?
Nothing seems to stop anyone else around here.
We are the 198 proof..
there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.
Sweden my arse, this is the same Sweden that until recently was practicising forced sterilisations? FTFA,
Those of mixed race, low intelligence or with physical defects underwent forced sterilization by the state in order to prevent such qualities from being passed on. However, there is evidence that sterilization extended even to those who were merely rebellious, promiscuous or did not fit in somehow.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries.
Except for those forced sterilisations there. You know, against the rebellious. Ah Sweden, also the place to be if you want to sexually abuse animals. Bestiality on the rise? Nice.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Implemented one of the most restrictive versions of the DMCA ever written, while telling protestors outside that "theyll get to their mp3's later"?
I'm sorry but a free press is not a guarantee against corruption, just absolute power for those who own "the press".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Fortunately it isn't the White House that decides these sort of things. This really falls into the realm of the courts. Gonzales can try to prosecute reporters all he wants, but in the end the courts will decide if he is right or wrong. Hopefully he will try going up against a reporter/newspaper first with resources to fight back and put an end to this quickly.
This is assuming the courts will disagree with him. If they agree (I think it's unlikely, this sounds like some sort of twisted political move), we may have bigger problems.
The Oklahoma City bomobing was done by one guy and a truck.
He drove away from the bombing.
How soon things are forgotten.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Government is increasingly about perception, as is corporate life. "Language is reality" is the mantra expression the attitude that underlies this shift of attitude; it is a shift that originates on the left, but (especially post Leo Strauss) now encompasses the entire political spectrum. In practice, this is translated into "perception is reality", so that one "should" react to fears, rather than risks.
If it were all about a simple line between freedom and saftey, why isn't road saftey receiving more attention, for example?
Wikileaks, no DNS
You won't have me arguing that one. I can only hope people wake up and stem that tide yet again (we had one during the McCarthy era as well...)- so things won't go the way they did in Italy or Germany in the middle 1940's.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And I say being an Attorney Genral with the first letter of your first name being the second letter of your last name is a crime.
13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
Humm... missed this somehow with the American Muslims who've become terrorists and the British and the IRA.
I'd like to say that I agree, but observation tells me otherwise.
Suggested Modified Motto: Feed, clothe, medicate, and educate. When they do something evil, however, smash them like bugs.
Carrot - We will make your life better
Big stick - We will obliterate you and all you hold dear if you try to kill our innocent
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Guess he missed the Pentagon Papers case, which went to the US Supreme Court back in the early 70s when the New York Times published leaked classified information about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration tried to block publication, and they lost. Substitute Bush for Nixon [insert your joke here] and the parallel is pretty strong.