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.
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.
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
This is information leaked from the inside, not stolen from the inside. If someone in your house leaks one of your business secrets to the press, do they have the right to publish it? Yes.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
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.
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 . .
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!
Are you suggesting that our current "enemy" in the war zone doesn't already know these things? If a teenager with a cell phone is capable of providing this information to an upstream armed group (it's called scouting), surely a reporter pointing out, for example, that we're also funding the opposing side of the war should be entitled to when they come across proof.
If a reporter finds out about something, it wasn't much of a secret, or going to be a secret much longer any way. It's often the case that US citiznes do not actually know what is going on until a report broadcasts the "secret".
You'll find me a little more agreeable the day FOI requests aren't denied by default, then fought to the death, and finally touted as the government cooperating with the people once someone actually wrestles a piece of public information from this Neo-Christo fascist country of ours.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
The government will always state that anything they don't want the public to know about is a national security risk in some form or another. This danger becomes even more severe as we enter into this new type of "War on Terror" where the proponents of such war would like to have the public believing that there are hobgoblins hiding in every shadow. If they can convince the public that everything is a threat, then everything becomes an issue of national security. And once everything becomes an issue of national security, and is classified accordingly, then there is no reason to worry about those pesky journalists.
I have mentioned this in previous discussions, and I will bring it up again. I am not comfortable with one branch of government having the sole power to determine what the public is and is not allowed to see. This is the situation we are beginning to fall into. We have been here before, with Nixon using the national security argument in an effort to protect his activities.
There isn't an independent clearing house for verifying whether something is national security or not, and since I don't trust giving the power to decide this to a single branch of government, I would rather error on the side of caution and support the Constitutional protection of a free press. Without this protection, only a fool would trust the government.
Show me one example where the press has even tried to publish troop locations or a LEGAL military strategy. Of course, some people could argue that exposing the secret prison facilities is just such a case, while I disagree with the legality of the issue. However, we wouldn't even have the ability to argue whether the government's actions are legal or illegal if it were not for the media forcing the issue into the public discussion.
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
The right comparison is the other genocidal dickhead. The Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvilli one. Just ask any Russian speaker for a comparison of Bushisms with koba's pearls of wisdom. There is a clear one-to-one match there as well as a one-to-one match with Koba's vindictiveness, paranoia and simulated stupidity.
This is also the scarier comparison. 'cause for all of his efforts Hitler never reached a fraction of Stalin's body count.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Thank you!
:-( I got not one of the +1 Funny modifiers that I am always 'fiending' for.
At least someone got the joke. I mean, +5 informative
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
-- ac at work
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. --
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.
Echelon complied with FISA. Bush's wiretapping program doesn't.
It's funny how the party that used to talk about "the rule of law" doesn't want to actually comply with the law...
Bullshit. The programs under the NSA do not solely tap the phones of terrorists. This administration has explicitly violated both Constitutional and federal law with regard to wiretaps, and they have no excuse; FISA even allows you to wiretap and then get a warrant 72 hours later. Nearly every "tip" in the administration's "terrorist surveillance program" had led to dead ends and innocent Americans.
The government is legally required to get a warrant even to just check out what numbers people have been calling, without a wiretap, as mentioned in the previous linked article. The administration ignored that law and the judgements of the judges that held it up. Depending on what polls you subscribe to, anywhere from 30%-60% of Americans do have a problem with the NSA program collecting phone records. I definitely have a problem with it. Not everyone is a coward like you that would have complete safety from the Big Bad Terrorists in exchange for their privacy and their freedom.
Neither war nor terrorists give the government an excuse to trample on the law and the freedoms we are guaranteed.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.
As long as you have the myth that anyone can be well off if they work hard enough, Americans will keep sucking it up. Once poverty is a source of guilt, you can control the poor; and if you're the rich, you can increase the poverty gap as much as you like.
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
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").
"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.
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.
So, back to the topic at hand, since you weren't/aren't president, what does Novak and his source get? Medal of Freedom? Pound-me-in-the-ass prison?
Sounds like you have a pretty strong double-standard going.
Regardless of what tawdry spin you want to put on this, the fact is that Novak reported classified information that was leaked to him by the White House. You cannot legally differentiate between the leakers you favor and the leakers you don't favor.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
I could tell you; but it might get me thrown in jail.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
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").
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.
This makes Ashcroft's religious fanaticism and messiah complex seem rather quaint now doesn't it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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
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
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.
Where do you go? You stay RIGHT THERE, and FIGHT for your freedom, dammit!!!
The US is quickly falling into a totalitarian state because of ONE REASON: The populace allows it. The PEOPLE are letting the government get away with this! YOU are letting the government get away with this!
Gonzales supports torturing prisoners to get information. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others selected Bush as their champion to invade Iraq and sieze control of the middle-east almost two years before he was nominated for the presidency. Oh, and let's not forget the US government deporting Canadian citizens to other countries where they'll be tortured, as happened with Maher Arar.
Then consider how the government treats its own people: Spying on them illegally, trashing the first ammendment, and imprisoning them.
Why are you letting these people walk through the streets freely? Why are you letting them run your lives? Why are YOU PERSONALLY not standing up against them, and fighting for everything that they're destroying, after two and a quarter centuries?
Quit complaining. Fight for your lauded rights. Fight with words and law and accountability, or later on you'll be fighting with knives and guns and molotov cocktails.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Judge Gonzales -
"When our guys do it - good.
When you guys do it - bad."
"But this one goes to 11!"
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
There's a monster truck in town with two stickers in the rear window.
One is a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker.
The other says, "Don't Steal. The Government Doesn't Like Competition.
The irony is so thick it's blocking the guy's view out the back of his truck.
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.
But terrorism only works when you let yourself be afraid. We don't have to be afraid. The government and the media are both very interested in having us be afraid. The government wants it because that fear can be translated into reasons for expansions of power, which eventually reward the corporations who pay the lobbyists that compensate the politicians. The media wants it because that fear translates into more advertising dollars during the airtime that panders to fear.
But you don't have to accept either group's assertion that you should be afraid. You should think carefully and act rationally and live your life deliberately aligned with your principles. Being afraid of the vague threat of terrorism doesn't do that. It directly and completely prevents that.
people react with emotion. The[y] 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.
You're conflating a bunch of things together as if they were the same thing. They're not. Having a healthy understanding of risk means avoiding dangerous situations based on a reasonable fear of harm. Being paralyzed by fear to the point that you're willing to sacrifice your freedoms to feel a little security is pure insanity. Wanting to find and punish those who have harmed us is a healthy desire for justice. Wanting to keep anyone who might harm us locked away without any charge or even a promise of a trial runs afoul of so many principles Americans should hold dear (prior restraint, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.) that the fear has again caused people to set aside their core principles.
Pure insanity. There is no reason to be so afraid. There is good reason to want to correct what has gone wrong. There is good reason to want to make sure that the police can do their jobs. There is no reason to believe that the police couldn't do their job with the laws before 9/11.
You are a slave to the fear you have been told to feel and I pity you. As long as you are afraid, you will never be free.
Regards,
Ross
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").
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