Slashdot Mirror
Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill
angry tapir writes "New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution. Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, introduced the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination, or SHIELD, Act (read the bill here [PDF]). The bill would clarify US law by saying it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
So, does this apply to Libby / Chaney leaking name of active CIA operative? Oh wait, got a pardon from Bush....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability; in other words, you can't make something illegal today, and then prosecute the guy that did it yesterday. It's more like the early laws around computer crime, which came about not to prosecute people who had already been hacking, but instead came about because existing law didn't properly address something that should already have been criminalized, in the eyes of the legislature.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Are they making it retroactive then?
In Sweden, we can't apply laws retroactively, that is, if something is still legal at the time you do it, you have not suddenly committed a crime just because someone passes a new law. How is the situation in the US?
c++;
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
I'm not sure exactly why this would apply to Assange. US law, last I checked, doesn't allow for prosecution of an act committed while it was still legal.
Of course, this lets Mr. Novak, The Dick Cheney, et al. off the hook for "leaking" Natalie Plame's name...(OK, so Novak is dead...), as it's not supposed to be all that Constitutional, etc. to pass laws that retroactively incriminate people, not that it doesn't happen...
I don't see how the courts would uphold this outside of wartime (in wartime courts routinely let Congress and the Executive Branch run all over the Constitution), assuming the publisher didn't have "dirty hands" in obtaining the information in the first place.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I guess this is some sort of panic attack to be able to legally block wikileaks from the US and that make sure that Assange actually can be taken to court if it shows that he allowed someone in the US to take part of any of the leaked cables after this law is passed..
c++;
That we need less punishment for publishing state secrets as the government become more and more overbearing with things like the Patriot Act, foreign wars, and free market manipulation. What are we supposed to do when the government runs afoul if that same government can throw us in prison for talking about it? Representative King is more interested in having his name in the papers than representing the people. Protecting intelligence assets is the responsibility of the intelligence community, not the publishers that it gets leaked too.
Our politicians are a joke.
Julian Assange is not subject to US law.
No American citizen who has "publish[ed] the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community" in the past would be affected by this law.
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.
That is one of the things the Constitution has a specific thing to say about. Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3 says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
So if the law were passed it would make such an act illegal in the future, but would not apply to what has already been done.
Now what this would do it make it illegal for Wikileaks to release more information along the lines specified in the bill. Just because they had it before the law was passed wouldn't mean they could freely release them after the law was passed, if the law made it illegal to release information of that nature.
Did no one else see "SHIELD act" and immediately think Marvel Comics?
I half expected the link to lead to an Onion article with Nick Furry on it
"Espionage involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information."
Wasn't the information considered secret in the first place?
Why do they need to clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the "protected names" of American intelligence sources?
Bills should be introduced in the USA, UK, Australia and lots more places saying things like
It is a crime to hide things from the electorate. (This should not be mixed up with "Freedom of Information acts" that rarely work.)
It is a crime to govern by misdirection of public attention.
It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.
It is a crime to take away civil rights, whatever the state of the nation
It is a crime to introduce 'knee jerk' legislation.
It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law
It is a crime to give or accept identifiable corporate campaign donations
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
in a way this could be good.
now there's no doubt about what needs to be redacted, and wikileaks can get on with their job without that extra accusation being thrown at them. just redact protected names and be done with it.
Seems like a bigger deal than it is-- had Assange done what everyone told him to do & take the extra 5 minutes to censor all the names, it would still be law-abiding! Well...names of the human-rights-violators should still be left intact...
I understand the US government wanting to protect itself from Wikileaks and send a message to any others that it will cost them. What worries me is that from here (Australia) it appears that a large proportion of the american people think what Wikileaks is doing is unjustifiably bad. Is that really the case or is it just media hype?
If they somehow try to apply this to Assange then they should apply it to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove for outing (or giving the orders to out) Valerie Plame.
The GOP (actually all Congressmen) show their complete hypocrisy. They cried foul when Plame was outed and the Democrats accused the administration of being involved, but now they are jumping all over themselves to go after Assange.
This law does not make sense. It says that it is espionage to discover US espionage? Moreover, this is the first recursive law I had ever read. For example, would that mean that a US newspaper/US attorney can be prosecuted for publishing a story about a criminal if he is a spy?
But will they be able to get Nick Fury to run S.H.I.E.L.D?
I mean, Securing Human Intelligence? Sounds good to me!
So, if the pass the law, people would just go Bob Smith, 123456 Weird St, Auckland, New Zealand is NOT the person who supplied the US with information... ie... youd end up with alot of 'not' words being added to documents... brilliant
Gee, I wonder if anyone could use the SHIELD Act to prosecute Karl Rove or someone for leaking Valerie Plames CIA cover.
Oh that's right. It's not a crime when Republicans do it.
Can someone introduce a bill that outlaws backronyms?
So King claims jurisdiction outside of USA. Audacious, if stupid. Would he be OK with Ruritania legislating against morons being elected to US Congress on the basis that this constitutes a clear and present danger to the world? Would the USA comply with demands to extradite King and others of his ilk to be incarcerated until such time they are deemed fully functional and literate?
Anonymous seems to have stumbled upon a much bigger problem. Read Glen Greenwald's piece on the collaboration between DoJ, BoA and rogue 'security' companies. Greenwald was to be personally targeted, and now he's taking names:
It's his most powerful piece to date.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"... it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
I agree with this statement.
By all means, pass it as a law and then bring in Samuel L. Jackson sporting an eyepatch to start an agency named after this Bill.
How about a bit of legislation prohibiting the titling of bills in a manner that constitutes blatant propaganda? It's perhaps not as bad as the PATRIOT act, which is the most crotch-punchingly offensive example I've come across, but it's the same fucking ballpark. I'm not sure who should be most insulted: people who don't back the legislation, or the general public whose intelligence is held in such dim regard (and all snark aside, I don't think that most people are really all that stupid).
If simply using sequential numbers is too boring, I propose that the opposing team be allowed free rein to add words to the title of the bill, with no right of appeal or amendment granted to the originator. In this case, for instance, the 'no' camp could insist that the title be amended to Another Nugget of Awful Legislation Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination.
"The bill would clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the U.S. military or intelligence community."
Anyone who would want to create a classification of people who are immune from public scrutiny is definitely an enemy of United States. That's you Rep. King.
You obviously don't work for a telecom company.
How exactly would they know which names are protected? IRC, Wikileaks offered the government a chance to identify such names, and the govt. refused.
wikileaks won't be able to be prosecuted for the leaks they've done, but they won't be able to make any new leaks. This isn't about retaliation or damage control, but about giving them some legal teeth for later.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Didn't WikiLeaks ask at least one federal department for help redacting names and other identifying info from the documents, and those departments declined to do so?
I bet the people who drafted this Bill for him (and I don't mean his staff) didn't know that, or conveniently forgot about it.
Today, Curveball admitted he lied to start the Iraq War.
Millions dead - mostly civilians and drafted Iraqi soldiers.
Bankrupt nation - both Iraq and America.
After the war crimes trials for all three ... then they can come for Assange.
And NOT a MOMENT before.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They should throw the book and the bench at Pfc. Bradley Manning and not touch Jullian Assange. Manning was the one who STOLE the information in the first damn place.
This amounts to trying to "kill the messenger" if the messenger was telling everyone about something he heard from from someone who stole the information. It has a bad "chilling effect" and is not good for free speech.
It is like trying to shut down a newspaper that published stolen state secrets, instead of going after the person who stole them in the first place.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The politicians need to realize that, in this day and age, once a secret is out, it's out forever. Once the next Bradley Manning leaks some secrets, they're pretty much public. All Assange is doing is putting them in one place. I'm not saying leaking secrets is good. Some secrets should stay that way. But go after the people leaking them.
So... It would be unlawful for a foreign citizen, to publish information in a foreign country, using foreign resources. Basically a US crime, but not committed on US territory. Good luck with that.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
That still does not address the issue that Assange is an Austrialian currently residing in England. Does that mean rendition teams from US will apply US laws to any foreign citizen? Then the reverse is true and rendition teams from other foreign countries can do the same to US citizen. Like prosecute Cheney or Bush for war crimes with rendition teams in the US.
"The bill would clarify US law by saying it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
Ya, ok... but if, say, the US Gov't was approached with the opportunity to redact any/all of the names that should be protected but refrained from doing so would they be complicit in the final action? Would they hold some blame?
But what was he lying about exactly? Was he just obstructing because he didn't like the tone of the question? No way -- Libby wanted to prevent the release of information that suggested that SOMEONE had betrayed Plame's identity. Aiding and abetting, in my opinion.
Like a list of suspected russian spies on US soil. I realize that Russia doesn't have such a law in place, so it's a bit of a moot point, but it does throw perspective on the idea that this law is effectively attempting to outlaw the counter espionage acts of other sovereign nations. If my government catches a US spy, then they are committing espionage, and when they are tried for espionage their names enter public record, making the judge (?) or the master of court records (?) or just the entire government criminals... But that's because the US should be allowed to spy on everyone on as they see fit, cause they're special...
Given WikiLeaks is a whistleblower site exposing corruption, isn't any effort to undermine it inherently an act of corruption?
We already have Shield Laws. But they protect Journalists, not prosecute them. Some people are really not meant to come up with names.
This is simply a fund raising tactic. The US can't touch Assange and they shouldn't.
The guy toppled more Mid East governments than the CIA has in their wettest dreams.
he isn't american.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Lets teach freedom of speech and democracy to the opressed... Lets... :(
Lets make sure it's retroactive so Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney can go to jail for espionage as well! After all they did compromise the identity of a secret agent of the CIA.
"New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution."
How does any legislation target one person?
"The penalty for being Julian Assange is 20-30 years in prison and a minimum $250,000 fine."
I'm finding it hard to believe that Wikileaks hasn't posted anything that's NATO-classified. Even if Sweden isn't a NATO member, wouldn't that expose Assange to prosecution in the UK, which is a member, and also happens to be his present location?
Ex Post Facto
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
They can pass all the laws they want. International law says he can't be prosecuted for something that was not illegal at the time it was done. Something lawyers call Ex Post Facto.
Bills should be introduced in the USA, UK, Australia and lots more places saying things like
It is a crime to hide things from the electorate. (This should not be mixed up with "Freedom of Information acts" that rarely work.)
It is a crime to govern by misdirection of public attention.
It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.
It is a crime to take away civil rights, whatever the state of the nation
It is a crime to introduce 'knee jerk' legislation.
It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law
It is a crime to give or accept identifiable corporate campaign donations
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
Happy with,
"It is a crime to give or accept identifiable corporate campaign donations"
if you add;
"It is a crime to give or accept identifiable Union campaign donations"
+1, Ostrich Strategy.
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
Oh I do hope they raise this in evidence at the UK Assange hearing ...
Telling judges in one jurisdiction that you're going to usurp their powers from another jurisdiction is not what I'd call killer public relations. :)
If not, who gives a fuck what laws they pass?
You don't get a free pass on a crime because you happen to be in another country. That is the whole point of agencies like Interpol and things like Extradition Treaties. You can't just skip to another nation and say "Ha, ha! Can't arrest me!" That is actually what is going on with Assanage right now. Sweden has chosen to criminally charge him, but he's in England. Sweden has requested he be extradited so he can be tried. So England is have an extradition hearing to decide if he will be or not. More or less they see if the request is legal per the treaty, and if there's any extenuating circumstances as to why it shouldn't happen.
Now this also can apply to crimes that are committed form outside a country, but have an impact on citizens in the country. If you run a fraudulent business selling dangerous good to US citizens marketed as safe, you can get charged for that. Doesn't matter that you aren't in the US, your crime is happening there. They can charge you with it.
Now again, it depends on the country you are in. Some countries don't have extradition treaties with other countries and thus you aren't going to get handed over. Also the nature of the treaties differ, so not all nations will hand over people for all things. For example the US won't extradite for some minor crimes.
England and Australia both have extradition treaties with the US and the nations are very cordial. If he was charged with a felony in the US, and there was evidence to substantiate it, the nations would almost certainly extradite. Now once in the US, the court would try him like anyone else. A criminal court is not concerned with how a defendant got there or where they are from, they are concerned only with the matter set before them to decide.
Now as to prosecuting Bush for war crimes, no probably not. For one, you really have no case. The idea that the Iraq war was somehow illegal is completely false. A bad idea and started on flimsy pretense, but not illegal. The fact aside that sovereign nations have a right to make war, the US was already at war with Iraq. There was no peace treaty after the first Gulf War and Iraq continually violated the no-fly zones by shooting at US jets. A de-facto state of war existed, even if no actual major conflict was being fought. Also the UN didn't pass any resolution against the war (and couldn't because the US has veto power, along with several other nations).
That aside when dealing with national leaders, right or wrong, the rules are a little different. The US is a powerful and influential nations, not to mention one with a really big military. Trying to charge its leaders would be a non-starter, in particular because you'd have to ask the US to extradite them, which it wouldn't, or try to kidnap them, which would be an act of war.
You do not control the FUCKNG world!
Stop acting and legislating like you do, or the citizenry will vote you ignorant ASS out of office!!!!!
Elucidate, oh Genius/PolyMath/Insightful wizard, please!
Meh.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Even if they pass this law it cannot impact Wikileaks because it would be ex-post-facto. You can't make something illegal after the fact.
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
Apparently the jury didn't see it as such a little slip-up.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Lonnae O'Neal Parker of the Post
and try an pretend they aint the oldest hdfo's in the bar and
actually have enough money between the two of them to buy a drink instead of
manipulating some dude into buying them one.."I've known about it for several weeks
because she's been trying to decide what to do for a while," said journalist
Danielle Belton. Belton knows Callahan socially, but that didn't stop her from
acting like she was doing a piece of journalism regarding this story and was in on
the deliberations. "We were all like, 'Come on!' She probably would not have done
anything with it. She is not someone who wants that kind of media attention." Yeah,
except for the fact that a simple Google search on Yesha Callahan reveals that she
is a compulsively blogging/tweeting media whfore with little to nothing to actually
say who tried out for the Real Housewives of D.C. Jersey, and, strangley Orange
County, go figure.
http://theloop21.com/news/yesha-callahan-gives-first-last-post-the-craigslist-
congressman
At Danielle Belton's suggestion amidst a group of "Waiting to Exhale, How Stella
Got Her Groove Back" burnouts and crusty drama queens, Callahan reached out to
Maureen O'Connor at the gossip Web site Gawker, which guaranteed her anonymity for
a period of time long enough for Callahan to find a buyer for her "coming out"
piece. After the story appeared and the New York representative resigned, Belton
interviewed Callahan anonymously about what happened for the Web site
TheLoop21.com. So some dumb bitch from theloop21.com interviewed her drinking
buddy? Cool, I guess people just start blogs and interview their houseplants now
too and then act like its journalism.
http://theloop21.com/news/yesha-callahan-gives-first-last-post-the-craigslist-
congressman
Callahan, 34, said she wrestled for weeks about what to do with the e-mails she
swapped on Craigslist with Lee last month. He'd told her he was a 39-year-old
divorced lobbyist with a son; she traced his e-mail address to his Facebook page,
then discovered he was, in fact, a married, 46-year-old politician. Who does that?
she wondered. (Lots of people bidtch, see AshleyMadison, nature, the history of the
ffdhucking world...then get over yourself and why don't you and Tony Dungy and his
deceased white hatred black power 9/11 afficionado son get off your high horses
stat.
A faculty specialist for the University of Maryland (actually Yesh, you work at
UMUC, which is the red headed government mandated step child to the august U. of
Maryland) and single mother of a preteen son, Callahan hashed over the e-mails with
her social circle of young professionals, if bys "young professionals" you mean
other aging stank ho's with nothing better to do than tell everyone via their lame
blogs about how they manage to be black and stuff, a real Grand Counsel you called
there, Yesha. Lee's deception was out of bounds, her friends agreed, mostly because
he was white, and Callahan began to see this as a cautionary tale.
The picture that Chris Lee sent Yesha Callahan. (Gawker) Political scandals in
photos
"I assumed that other people have probably come across him as well, and he had lied
to them," she said. "I felt annoyance at just the audacity of people thinking that
they're not going to get found out when they are lying when triflin' horses like
myself are lying in wait to blackmail them, I mean really."
From Flyblackchick.com Yesha Callahans blog post on the matter wherein she lies
about how the Washington Post came to know her (she contacted them) and tries to
act like she didn't knowingly, willingly break her own "anonymity" in this regard:
"Since all anonymity is lost (note: Here G.E.D. possessing Yesha tries to be
clever and not outright admit that she outed herse
My kingdom for a mod (up) point!
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
The US government seems so hypocritical.
The US Governement (all sides) say want political freedom and democracy elsewhere in the world, but they legislate to prevent openness and accountability when things are not in their favour...
Assange is not only not a US citizen, he's not likely to ever go anywhere near the US for the remainder of his lifetime. The US has absolutely no legal jurisdiction over him in any way, shape, or form.
The only methods they could, (and we should not doubt that they will use them), are extralegal. In fact, any one in the world who has pissed off the US can now, thanks to Assange, argue against extradiction from anywhere to anywhere on the grounds that it might lead to US extraordinary rendition.
Second, there should be a legal test everytime legislation so overreaching is produced. If it is found to be against the constitution, the legislator who put forward the bill should be shot.
That would certainly make legislators think twice before trying to pass specious, social destruction legislation.
Therefore if they apply the law to the rest of the world we should start prosecutting US troops that commit war crimes abroad.
A jury is a group of 12 people of average ignorance. - Herbert Spencer.
A jury consists of 12 people chosen to decide who has the best lawyer. - Robert Frost.
When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. - Norm Crosby.
Almost arbitrarily the jury can decide whether you genuinely forgot something, you're lying about forgetting something, or the fact you can't recall is sufficient. Never underestimate the level of "stupid" a group of lay men can bring to a discussion between educated people.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I am an American, but I do not see the US government being any longer a genuine American government consistent with its founding documents. But only drifting further and further away, becoming a rouge government. And now its becoming quite obvious the US government is disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent, but instead leads the people with deception.
What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too.
The math is to simple. there will be 7 billion people on this planet this year and its only some fraction of 1% of the population that is causing all the trouble and waring wasteful expense of the mind games of these few rather than correcting real world problems for the rest of us, RE: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml which would be much more effective at reducing the motives of others to attack us, as well.
This is the best indicator of a government that can be rightfully diagnosed as being psychologically unfit to command anyone.
Making up the rules as they go along does not work in this country as its supposed to be a democracy but where is our opportunity to vote on this?
Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfield publicly stated that they cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon spending.... Thats about $8,000 per man, woman and child in the US..... Its also taxation without representation... striking at the very heart of the birth of the US.... the Boston Tea Party... And they continue to spend massive amounts for defense.... 47% of the total world defense spending. Add in the Allies spending and we are over 60% of world spending where teh remaining 40% is divided amount many many poor countries. We don't need to spend anywhere near that much on defense... unless we are going to be attacked by Aliens... Yeah right....
What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too, for teh US government continues to show evidence of their failure to understand the founding documents of this country and even teh Declaration of Independence states its not only our right but duty to put of such corrupt government and make the corrections ourselves.
I don't see anything about what these people in the intelligence services are engaged in. For instance if they rob, kill or torture people will publishing anything about that be lawful? Does it mean that the intelligence services can employ lowlife to do their work and if they do a few crimes on their way they get immunity from investigation? Looks like a bunch of opportunities to me. And why anyway are intelligence services so special compared to anybody else? If you know someone is going to be endangered by your actions shouldn't you tell them in advance anyway so they can prepare?
thou discernest my thoughts from afar
They didn't get him for doing anything actually 'wrong', just for not having 100% recall? _I_ don't have that type of recall I barely remember what I did last week, let alone daily events that happened months ago.
Hasn't this guy read the constitution and amendments? You know the the one he took an oath to uphold?
It would be one thing if he were proposing an amendment but contradicting the constitution? We as American citizens need a way to impeach government officials ourselves.
Just so you know, if US law applies to Australians, then equally, Australian laws apply to Americans - to you. So here's what will happen if you continue with this farce.
We'll pass a law in our Parliament, say, making it illegal to be a dickhead. Then we'll arrest you. You can cool your heels in Long Bay - or maybe enjoy the comforts of one of our famous detention centres. Fair exchange?
Wikileaks didn't leak the information, they published it. The leak came from Manning.
McKinnon ring a bell? The crimes he's charged with to extradite were brought in AFTER he pootled around in DoD networks.
Ex post facto doesn't matter.
Sometimes.
Exposing Government Corruption and Cover ups is the Duty of every American Citizen. -- ''During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'' My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. ~Thomas Jefferson
So that goes for Clinton and Gore when they gave sensitive military secrets to the Chi-Coms??? Actually, Berger should've been prosecuted for his crimes as well. If found guilty, Berger would long been worm food.
Irony is awesome.
: )
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britains policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called special relationship, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
1. There are many loopholes in the prohibition on ex post facto. They can still screw up your life for something you did long ago.
2. An amendment to the Constitution can change anything about the Constitution.
"no law..abridging freedom of speech"
So, I assume it is ok to publish child pornography ? Snuff Films ? detailed blueprints for nuclear devices ?
no law doesn't mean "no law" it means something like "minimal laws consistent with current notions of morality and ethics"
maybe you stopped fixating on the text, and thought a while, you would understand that
I see that you corrected the title. Are you talking about Lon Chaney or can you really not spell "Cheney"?
Constitutionally speaking, and with no intent to show disrespect for all of our military soldiers who have dodged bullets and more since WWII, we haven't been at war since V-J Day in 1945.
OK, I take that back, we were at war for a short period of time during and shortly after the actual attack of 9/11 and arguably for brief periods of time during and after other, much less significant, actual attacks and insurrections on the United States. I don't think it's constitutional to consider the wars that resulted from 9/11 as extending much past September 2001 as Congress had ample opportunity to pass a formal declaration of war and chose not to do so, the War-Powers Act and related laws notwithstanding.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If this law passes, we'll have to burn the history books that list the names of nazis since many later worked for USA (as Nazi Hunters, ironically). This would have unforseen consequences and could result in the destruction of history (and school).
I just like the names.
Patriot act?
SHIELD?
What's next?
Securing Homeland's Information Technology?
Hicks inbreeding clueless klan supporters?
"Julian Assange and his associates who have operated and supported WikiLeaks not only damaged U.S. national security with their releases of classified documents, but also placed at risk countless lives, including those of our nation’s intelligence sources around the world,"
I believe you caused this yourself, America - by doing what you do best - Keeping secrets, and doing dirty business.