Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration's eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law. . . .
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week.
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.
"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate.
While DeWine's office denied any intention to criminalize discussions by journalists of these programs, that is clearly the effect. And the fact that they are attempting to add whole new categories of criminal conduct arising out of any discussion of the Administration's eavesdropping conduct -- even if such discussion does not entail the harmful disclosure of classified information -- demonstrates, yet again, that the primary lesson learned by the Administration from the NSA scandal is that new ways must be invented to punish those who report on the illegal conduct in which they engage.
These new provisions in the DeWine legislation are clearly part of the Administration's campaign to increase the scope of whistle-blowing and journalistic activities which are treated by the government as criminal. As part of that campaign, Pat Roberts last month announced that he would introduce legislation adding new categories of whistle-blowing activities to the criminal law and which severely increase the penalties for violations of those laws.
The Administration self-evidently intends to use the criminal law to prevent further revelations of their illegal behavior, whether the disclosures come from ordinary citizens, government whistle-blowers or investigative journalists. They want anyone who is considering disclosing government wrongdoing to fear the prospects of criminal prosecution so that they remain silent. As I've documented several times before, journalists are the primary target of this intimidation campaign, but it extends far beyond them as well.
One no longer is surprised when the media ignores or fails to understand severe crises in our government, but one would expect that if they take a stand against anything, it would be crusades of this sort to intimidate and silence the adversarial press. So far, at least, their silence is deafening.
Whether they really intend to put journalists and whistle-blowers in jail or not, and who knows?, the fact that these threats exist do the trick. They want to scare and initmidate people. Why risk 40 years in prison or even expensive grand jury investigations when you can just keep quiet and go about your life peacefully?
ReplyDeleteYou did see it! How unbelievable is this shit?? Unconscionable. I am telling you this is simply prelude to a complete fascist takeover. These people are not representing us. I simply can not believe this is happening! They want to criminalize the efforts of those that would expose governmental criminality. It is crazy. The American people are sitting by and watching it happen to them! What the hell has happened to this country? Have we gone completely insane? We will allow this to go on and on until there is nothing left but the drool flowing from our mouths as we watch American Idol? God it is sickening and that little rat faced DeWine... God damn him. God damn them all.
ReplyDeleteDo you know how much money the media corporations would save if all they had to report was what the whitehouse told them to report?
ReplyDeleteGlenn - thanks for highlighting the latest assault on our freedoms from the Bush administration. Sadly, we are seeing far too many of those these days.
ReplyDeleteAs I've documented several times before, journalists are the primary target of this intimidation campaign, but it extends far beyond them as well.
ReplyDeleteIt will extend to you.
Glenn - just saw this up over at the Washington Post. Maybe you or A.L. could comment on it.
ReplyDeleteSenate Intel Panel Frayed By Partisan Infighting
This article particularly pissed me off because it is basically blaming the committee's problems on partisanship. But it making it sounds as those only Democrats are to blame for the infighting, when the Republicans on the committee are the ones who are blatantly displaying partisanship by covering for Bush.
Just thought id give you a heads up. You're probably way ahead of me tho. I, indeed, am not worthy.
Regards,
X
One no longer is surprised when the media ignores or fails to understand severe crises in our government, but one would expect that if they take a stand against anything, it would be crusades of this sort to intimidate and silence the adversarial press. So far, at least, their silence is deafening
ReplyDeleteWhat adversarial press? As Helen Thomas just pointed out, our press has already become “lap dogs” – on a short leash, no less. And that’s even before the these threats.
One reason, Thomas cites for the failures of the press is that reporters who actually had historical perspective on government deception are no longer around anymore, but it goes way beyond that.
The lead up to the Iraq War was when it really seemed to happen, and the “with us or against us” rhetoric really seemed to work, as well as blaming all failures in Iraq on a biased liberal press. (And the rise of Fox News and other outlets which are propaganda organs for the administration to carry out these attacks.)
One encouraging sign is that the public doesn’t seem to be buying that anymore. Nearly 80% believe Iraq is headed toward a civil war in spite of Ralph Peters and others who insist this is just hysterical biased press coverage. Nobody’s buying their talking points anymore – and it scares the hell out of them.
Will that give courage to the press to begin to challenge some of the administration’s more absurd claims? Probably, at least a little bit, and this why they are launching such a full scale attack on the press.
They’ve been backed into a corner, they’ve lost credibility, and all they can do now is attack anyone who questions them.
How long before such threats are also openly made against members of the opposition party ? Right-wing blogs are already talking about strapping Rockefeller and Durbin to lie detector tests, and prosecuting them for leaks. They’re going to go after everyone.
6,5,4,...1
ReplyDeleteThey'll be back for 3 and 2. Set aside a bedroom for the soldiers.
Zack wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat adversarial press? As Helen Thomas just pointed out, our press has already become “lap dogs” – on a short leash, no less. And that’s even before the these threats.
One reason, Thomas cites for the failures of the press is that reporters who actually had historical perspective on government deception are no longer around anymore, but it goes way beyond that.
I agree with Helen that one reason why today's reporters no longer take what the administration dispenses with grain of salt is because far too many of the are too young to know the lengths the government is will to go to in order to hide it's misdeeds.
Helen probably sits in the press room thinking "Man, while I was grilling the White House on Nixon's shenanigans, most of theses people were still in kindergarden".
I have always enjoyed Helen for her devotion to the truth and her tenacity in asking the tough questions that others choose not to.
Keep it up and give'em hell Hel.
X
I see this as a good thing. The more radical this administration becomes, the less defenders and apologists it has. Maybe this will make the DC steno corp come to and say "uh...hey, is he talking about us?"
ReplyDeleteEven though investigative reporting is so rare, and even the "facts" have been replaced by "he said, she said" the right for a reporter to become more than a stenographer is trying to be curtailed by this fascist agenda.
As a profound prophet Ronald Dumsfeld once said:
"The last throes of some deadenders"
Molly Ivins said last week, something to the effect, they wouldn't have put so much effort into expanding their powers if they didn't have plans to use it. When I see stories like this I find myself thinking we are indeed about to feel a boot on the back of our necks.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can see that the MSM isn't up in arms over this is that they just don't believe anybody would really go so far to abuse power. I think most people believe Bush is incompetent, but not malevolent. But anybody paying attention to the big picture sees so many mechanisms being put in place to support an all powerful executive--up to the level of absolute authoritarian police power--that it becomes impossible to believe there isn't something truly malignant at work in America today. Molly Ivins is right, you don't work this hard to amass power without intending to use it.
Right now we still have the freedom to challenge their power. There will come a time when that won't be the case. Who wants to wait and see if it gets that bad?
xsociate23--I saw that article in The Post this morning too. It pissed me off and I wrote to Babington thanking him for setting things straight. I assured him they pay well for guys willing to tell it like he does. What a worthless pile of shit that story is.
Now that the 4th amendment is toast it appears that the 1st amendment is next on the list. Are the Dems in the Senate going to stand up to this with every means at their disposal or, as usual, just sit there in mute and cowed acquiescence?
ReplyDeleteHow is this different from what existed under Saddam and Stalin?
While I greatly respect you, Glenn, I do not understand the point of this post. This information is available in a number of other places, so I don't think you should be applying your excellent writing skills to make such an incredibly cogent statement. I would prefer that you focus on more purely theoretical issues and let people try to discover information that actually may affect their lives for themselves. While many of them won't, those who do will feel that much more fulfilled. (Of course, they cannot share what they find with anybody else because that would spoil everybody else's fun.)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if you keep investigating and reporting on these kinds of issues, we may have to criminalize investigating and reporting altogether. Think about that, Mr. Greenwald. Better yet, don't think. Just obey.
Question: Could this proposed Act be specific to this program and/or this administration (is that even possible)? I just can't imagine them giving this kind of power to a Dem president. Unless, of course, they don't expect to see a Dem president for some time.
ReplyDeleteFrom the other side this morning: Feingold Calls for Bush's Censure
Just on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
"This conduct is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors," said Feingold....
He said President Bush had, "openly and almost thumbing his nose at the American people," continued the NSA domestic wiretap program.
[...]
Censure, essentially a public disapproval by the Senate as a whole, has only been applied to one president, Andrew Jackson, in a politically-charged move the Senate historian's office describes as "unprecedented and never-repeated tactic."
Frist called the censure attempt "political" and a "terrible, terrible signal" to enemies of the U.S. abroad. He assured Stephanopoulos that the resolution would never gain traction in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Feingold, best known for his bipartisan fight for campaign finance reform with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., intends to introduce the resolution this week -- insisting the move is not a political stunt.
Zack said: They’ve been backed into a corner, they’ve lost credibility, and all they can do now is attack anyone who questions them.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Also, Oilfieldguy is right. We are a beginning to see the parallel universe in the media already. Faux is actively talking up an invasion/bombing of Iran with support from Israel. No other news outlets that I have heard are going there.
Also, Glenn, this is on television this morning. Kurtz program had quite a discussion on it. Kurtz let Assrocket talk at length about how all reporters should jailed who leak anything. The other reporters on the panel were appropriately appalled. BushCo has lost it. Now they are overplaying their hand. It will backfire.
mo said:
ReplyDelete"Faux is actively talking up an invasion/bombing of Iran with support from Israel."
Sounds like somebody has some shiny new war graphics.
ej said...
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Could this proposed Act be specific to this program and/or this administration (is that even possible)?
I think it is much more insidious than that. What does everyone make of the excerpt below? Anyone else think DeWine and these other fascists know about these other surveillance programs that Gonzo alluded to and are trying to preempt whistle-blowers from disclosing information concerning them?
I am not sure what the "any other program conducted under a 1978 law" references but it seems to me they are attempting to cover Republican ass knowing that there are other, potentially more pervasive and damaging, spy operations directed at innocent Americans that have yet to be uncovered.
"The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law."
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThe Administration self-evidently intends to use the criminal law to prevent further revelations of their illegal behavior, whether the disclosures come from ordinary citizens, government whistle-blowers or investigative journalists.
How do you figure? Let's take a look at what the article actually says...
This article from Editor & Publisher reports that the proposed legislation for the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 to be introduced by Ohio Sen. Michael DeWine -- the principal purpose of which is to legalize the Bush Administration's illegal (sic) warrantless eavesdropping on Americans -- contains unprecedented provisions which create whole new categories of crimes designed to punish any future discussion of the President's eavesdropping activities, including by reporters:
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
The categories of top secret surveillance covered by this draft provision are all legal. The DeWine bill ratifies the NSA Program and FISA covers the other surveillance included under this provision.
Your entire argument was that the NSA Program was illegal because it was not submitted to FISA and would have been just dandy if submitted to FISA. Congress will ratify the program and remove it entirely from FISA. No more problem, if there ever was one.
If this is the case, then any further leaks about the means and methods of this program by the NYT and their ilk would have no defense whatsoever.
Are you arguing that the press should have a "get out of jail free card" to disclose any legal intelligence gathering program it wishes to our enemies?
This Dewine guy is sure handy for the administration. I wonder if Abu Gonzales is helping with the spelling and such on Dewine's proposed legislative white-out legislation?
ReplyDeletethe "king" demands nothing less than full compliance...
ReplyDeleteThis is amazing!
ReplyDeleteWe already know that the president does not give a wit about the people since we know he detests congress.
but congress as "representatives" of the people (what a joke) that could write legislation like this seems to me to be a direct attack on the people, the Constitution and liberty itself.
The true purpose of congress, it seems, it "representation of the president and his facsist policies".
and I am wondering when and if the press is finally going to fight this attempt to restrict thier ability to gather public info on these crimes. Or will they lay down, as is there habit, like good little doggies and play dead?
What this congress and president are doing is just utter contempt for the people! I wish the people could see it for what it is!!
Why risk 40 years in prison or even expensive grand jury investigations when you can just keep quiet and go about your life peacefully?
ReplyDeleteExactly. To quote the first paragraph of Paul Craig Robert's brilliant article "From Superpower to Tinhorn Dictatorship":
"America is headed for a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush’s second term. Whether any American has civil rights will be decided by the discretionary power of federal officials. The public in general will tolerate the soft dictatorship as its discretionary powers will mainly be felt by those few who challenge it."
If the Dewine proposal goes through, I really am going to have to conclude that there is no hope in this country. Even people of supposedly above average intelligence, the media, who are directly threatened by such a law will have been unwilling, unable or just too plain stupid to rise up against it.
That would suggest that they care more about profits than they do about keeping this a free country with a free press.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. It appears you can point out the real issues to people in this country, but you cannot make them understand their importance or take action to protect our liberties.
Four good things have happened to me in the last few months that are the only things which have given me hope:
l) Discovering Glenn Greenwald.
2) Discovering Russ Feingold.
3) Discovering Paul Craig Roberts
4) And yesterday, hearing the thrilling video tape of Dr. Sultan.
With regard to the first, I remind everyone to vote in the Wampum blog poll, and to select Unclaimed Territory as Best New Blog, and Glenn Greenwald for Best Writing.
It's crucially important that Glenn gets increased exposure so his message reaches a wider and wider audience, and it's up to us to help make that happen.
Russ Feingold is introducing a "censure" measure in the Senate tomorrow. I believe details of that are on his site, and it was discussed on the Sunday morning shows today. Others talk, but it's always Feingold who has the lonely courage of a true patriot and who takes action.
Seeing George Stephanopoulos this morning interview first Feingold, the person I consider to be the most ethical and admirable Senator, and then interviewing Bill Frist, in his full evasive, hypocritical, slick, horrifying fascist glory, the person I consider to be the least ethical Senator and one of the most evil people on the face of this earth, was almost more than I could bear.
(BTW, Frist revealed that the Port deal is NOT, in fact, dead. If the Dubai company cannot find a buyer to take them out at the deal for the price of entry, they will indeed be operating our ports.)
If Frist refuses to allow an up and down bill on Feingold's
"censure" motion, which is focused on the President having broken the law and the demand for a full investigation into the NSA scandal, it won't surprise me, given the fascist inclinations of Frist, but I will still scream.
All who have not heard Dr. Sultan's speech please listen to that video immediately. It is truly, truly thrilling and you will be glad you listened to it.
As you are aware, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced that he will introduce a resolution tomorrow to censure President Bush for authorizing an illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program. Feingold said President Bush’s actions were “right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.” This Sisyphean task may provide the dynamic for a strident public discourse on the NSA issue, forcing scrutiny of the issues involved, and provide a counterbalance to DeWine’s proposed totalitarian legislation. Once the immense significance of this debate becomes apparent, and its implications clearly defined, the outrage should spread beyond the glassball world of the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteThe ports deal controversy, what ever the political and economic dichotomy of that issue, illustrated that a vocal, energized citizenry in opposition - one that clamors to be heard - can have an immediate effect upon a political course. Senator Feingold needs the support of the American people for this action to succeed. To gain this, he will need high profile media coverage - the kind that Lou Dobbs provided on the ports issue - that is advocating of his (Feingold’s) position. Clearly, Bush broke the law; the censure is the least the Senate can do to begin a nation-wide and intense scrutiny of the issue. A fulminating electorate is impossible to ignore, although fraudulent Frist will use every divisive method of procedural obfuscation and obstruction that his staff can dredge up. The cowardly abdication of the Intelligence Committee’s investigatory obligations, succumbing to Cheney’s threats, has made Feingold’s course of action imperative. An email of support to Senator Feingold, phone calls, emails, and letters to our senators and congressional representatives, along with the same to the bastions of public media will be necessary to move this forward.
“This President is breaking the law.”
Addendum: The difficulty ahead lies in this illustration: Blitzer, in reviewing the other Sunday talk show highlights, rather than showing Feingold's appearance on ABC This Week, played the clip of the vile Frist implying that Feingold is treasonous:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re saying that censure resolution weakens America abroad?
FRIST: Yes. Well, I think it does because we are right now in a war, in an unprecedented war, where we do have people who really want to take us down and we think back to 9/11 and that war on terror is out there. So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our Commander in Chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that we know is making our homeland safer is wrong. And it sends a perception around the world and, again, that’s why I’m saying as leader at least of the Republican side of this equation, that it’s wrong, because leadership around the world of our sworn enemies are going to say, well, now we have a little crack there. There is no crack. The American people are solidly behind this president in conducting this war on terror.
I just read rh's comment, and I share his outrage. The country has gone insane and God damn them all to hell.
ReplyDeleteThe original patriots in this country fought a Revolutionary War to be free.
The present Americans sign their freedom away without even reading the papers they are signing, content to spend their time watching American Idol and listening to the ten thousandth interview with Beth Twitty.
Help!
PS. Naturally, Hillary Clinton will be all over the TV screens tomorrow laying out the reasons why the DeWine proposal is a big step toward fascism, right?
Ha.
An American Official Secrets Act.
ReplyDeleteNext we get the D-Notice.
Tony must have told George how much simpler life is in the UK.
It appears that the concensus here is that the Press should be free to disclose legal top secret intelligence gathering programs to our enemies...
ReplyDeleteAnything less is "fascism."
Do you ever wonder why voters do not trust you with the nation's defense?
This is really shocking, even by Bush standards. I don't have much to add, but I hope this sort of thing doesn't ever become routine....
ReplyDeleteDave
Of course their are other surveillance programs yet undisclosed. I'm pretty sure they can even get past my tin foil hat.
ReplyDeleteEvery last one of them should, and hopefully will hang for treason.
ReplyDeleteI am the last person to condone taking the life of another except in self-defense. My own code of ethics is that it is immoral to kill a bug, a mouse, a deer, or a human. Albert Schweitzer and Gandhi are heroes of mine.
This is self-defense, however. They should hang, every last one of them, every politican who knowingly commited treason and tried to turn this democracy into a fasicst dictatorship.
They should hang, so that it never happens again in this country.
It appears that the concensus here is that the Press should be free to disclose legal top secret intelligence gathering programs to our enemies...
ReplyDeleteDespite your conflation of hyperbolic rhetoric in phrasing the issue, the short answer is "yes"; that is what is clearly stated in the First Amendment.
Concomitantly, the invasion of Iraq and its mired conflagration, as illustrated by this breaking news, reveals that Bush's whole war on terror has in fact been a fomenting of terrorism, a metamorphosis from a regional conflict to a global virulent spread of anti-American ideologies with "terrorsts" being born and bred exponentially.
"So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our Commander in Chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that we know is making our homeland safer is wrong."
ReplyDeleteHas Frist looked a poll lately?
Jeff
So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our Commander in Chief ... is wrong.
ReplyDeleteYep, that's American as apple pie.
Feingold makes a good point today, one that I've thought about before. The wingnuts like to talk about Bush as Commander in Chief as though that puts him in control of our rights. Feingold points out that Martial Law wasn't declared after 911. Dewine's proposed legislation is another step towards totalitarian rule that is embraced by the wingnuts. I really don't understand how people can support totalitarian rule in America and consider themselves American patriots.
ReplyDeleteommzms said...
ReplyDeleteBart: It appears that the concensus here is that the Press should be free to disclose legal top secret intelligence gathering programs to our enemies...
Despite your conflation of hyperbolic rhetoric in phrasing the issue, the short answer is "yes"; that is what is clearly stated in the First Amendment.
Really? Find me a single case which interprets the First Amendment to give the Press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
Thanks for being honest about your objectives, though.
This is the elephant in the room which everyone else here is doing the best to ignore...
This is the elephant in the room which everyone else here is doing the best to ignore...
ReplyDeletehU oh, we're in trouble now, Osama now knows the President might be spying on American citizens. What city will be next to go as a result of this crippling blow to our intelligence gathering capabilities?
...the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
ReplyDeleteYou just proved the point about hyperbolic rhetoric.
This issue has shown clearly that they haven't limited themselves to monitoring foreign "enemies." Their problem is that they don't want the American public to know. You know that our "enemies" know that we are trying to listen to thier communications. There are relatively easy ways to communicate that relatively easy to avoid detection or obscure the message
This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with keeping us "safe."
So, for you, the ends justify the means. Tell us then, are there any limits to constitutional violations by the government as long as they tell you it will keep you "safe"?
Bart said...
ReplyDeleteThis is the elephant in the room which everyone else here is doing the best to ignore...
We are ignoring you Bart (and your inane attempts to push the idea that BushCo has not been acting illegally) because
a) this, to anyone who has a brain and can make sense of the world around them, is not about "legal" programs but rather "illegal" ones.
The fact that you are a kook-aid drinker and irrationally maintain that these surveillance programs are legal, in the face of all evidence and common sense to the contrary, does not make it so.
And b) We are ignoring you and your made up controversy because both you and the "controversy" are full of shit.
There is no controversy. BushCo broke and continues to break the law. Period.
Why not make it "illegal to disclose state secrets", with the president and vp defining what a "state secret" is after charges are filed?
ReplyDeleteThat is what China does; we could become just like China; we need to, after all, we are fighting a global war against terror, and there are many threats to our freedoms and lives. At these times, we need to give the president broad powers to suspend certain rights.
Then, we should stop having elections. This is a long war, and elections are just a distraction which the Democrats and other opponents will try to exploit to use and divide us. Of course, the president and vp would certify when the war on terror has ended. As Americans, it is our duty to give them our undivided loyalty and allegiance, and weed out the enemies among us.
Democracy does not apply during trying times when we are fighting the war against terror. In fact, our enemies will use it to divide us. After all, as the president said, "The constitution is just a piece of paper."
"You did see it! How unbelievable is this shit?? Unconscionable. I am telling you this is simply prelude to a complete fascist takeover. These people are not representing us. I simply can not believe this is happening! They want to criminalize the efforts of those that would expose governmental criminality. It is crazy. The American people are sitting by and watching it happen to them! What the hell has happened to this country? Have we gone completely insane? We will allow this to go on and on until there is nothing left but the drool flowing from our mouths as we watch American Idol? God it is sickening and that little rat faced DeWine... God damn him. God damn them all."
ReplyDeleteFrustrated. THAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Just pussy-whining would not do it.
Simp said...
ReplyDelete...the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
You just proved the point about hyperbolic rhetoric.
The Press can take it to a jury and see whether they think the charge of providing secrets about legal intelligence gathering programs is "hyperbolic rhetoric."
Really? Find me a single case which interprets the First Amendment to give the Press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
ReplyDeleteCertainly there are several instances of attempts to limit the interpretation of the First Amendment. Examples include:
• The Alien and Sedition Act (1789) (Although the United States Supreme Court never ruled on the validity of any of the Alien and Sedition acts, subsequent mentions of the Sedition Act in particular in Supreme Court opinions have assumed that it was unconstitutional. For example in the seminal Free Speech case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court declared, "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964).)
• The Espionage Act of 1917
• The Sedition Act of 1918 (Congress repealed both laws in 1921, and revised the "Clear and present danger" test to the "Imminent lawless action" test, which is less restrictive).
However, the notion of "freedom of the press" that later was enshrined in the United States Constitution is generally traced to the seditious libel prosecution of John Peter Zenger by the colonial governor of New York in 1735. Zenger was acquitted after his lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued to the jury (contrary to established English law) that there was no libel in publishing the truth.
No one here is advocating that the press should not exercise extreme caution in matters of classified information (although the Bush Administration wants to classify anything it cares to, even after it has been declassified and open to the Freedom of Information Act), or that editors should publish imminent battle plans against an extant enemy. So please raise the parameters of the rhetoric. The right to criticize the President, the Government, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and any and all the laws that infringe upon the individual are inherent in the First Amendment, as the failed attempts to stifle those freedoms of the “Fourth Branch of Government” have proven.
RH said...
ReplyDeleteBart: This is the elephant in the room which everyone else here is doing the best to ignore...
We are ignoring you Bart (and your inane attempts to push the idea that BushCo has not been acting illegally) because
a) this, to anyone who has a brain and can make sense of the world around them, is not about "legal" programs but rather "illegal" ones.
We are not talking about whether the NSA Program before the bill was or was not illegal.
The DeWine bill, for which about half of your party will vote, expressly states that the NSA program is legal and that any further disclosures about that program will be illegal.
Therefore, the issue becomes whether you folks support further leaks by the Press to the enemy of the means and methods of a ratified NSA Program?
Given that there hasn't been even the least thought to national security given on this thread, I think the answer is clear....
This is why you cannot trust a Donkey sharing your views with the national security secrets of this country.
Let's say the roof falls in. Dewine prevails and these fascist policies become law, the press is muzzled, and whistleblowers can no longer come forth.
ReplyDeleteThen what? Will any of the probable Presidential candidates reverse those policies and laws when they take office? Hell, no.
As Richard Dreyfuss said, nobody ever gives up power willingly.
I am looking ahead to the worst case scenario ---that we lose this fight now.
There will then be only one way to get rid of these fascist programs and laws which threaten to bring down this country.
The only person who would REVERSE them is Russ Feingold. We know he would, and that he is a man of integrity who says what he means and does what he says.
Please visit this draft Feingold site and show your support. It's not too early to start looking ahead. A third party candidate may not appear, and may not win even if he/she appears, so we may have to work within the two party system, and there, the only hope is Russ Feingold.
http://www.draftruss.com/topbar.gif
Go there now. Show your support. This is a grassroots movement to draft Russell Feingold and convince him to run. What could be more important?
ommzms said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Really? Find me a single case which interprets the First Amendment to give the Press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
Certainly there are several instances of attempts to limit the interpretation of the First Amendment. Examples include:
• The Alien and Sedition Act (1789)
• The Espionage Act of 1917
• The Sedition Act of 1918 (Congress repealed both laws in 1921, and revised the "Clear and present danger" test to the "Imminent lawless action" test, which is less restrictive).
Sedition has nothing to do with operational security of military intelligence secrets. Sedition is the slander of the government.
The Espionage Act criminalizes the act of disclosing secrets to the enemy and has never been found in violation of the First Amendment.
No one here is advocating that the press should not exercise extreme caution in matters of classified information (although the Bush Administration wants to classify anything it cares to, even after it has been declassified and open to the Freedom of Information Act), or that editors should publish imminent battle plans against an extant enemy.
No, just ongoing intelligence gathering against an enemy in a time of war.
So, under your theory, the NYT in 1944 would have been forbidden from disclosing the plans to the Normandy Invasion to the Germans, but would have been perfectly free to disclose the ENIGMA program to the Germans and Japanese.
Risen was not careful in any way with the information concerning the NSA Program. He immediately started writing a book. The book did not discuss how he reviewed the program with the CIA, NSA, Justice, the Congressional Intel committees tasked with oversight or even an attorney to determine whether the program was already sanctioned by Congress or whether it was clearly illegal. He didn't bother or care. Risen wrongly assumed that he could disclose anything he damn well pleased because he was a reporter. If there is any justice, he will discover how wrong he was and get to contemplate it from a prison cell.
rh:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a former Marine who served during the first Gulf War and who is completely willing to shoulder a weapon, as it appears I might have to do once again in the defense of the Constitution, my message to you is - fuck off.
Do you remember anything you were taught in the Corps about operational security?
Do you remember how there would have been a cozy cell in Leavenworth waiting for you if you had disclosed the intelligence gathering activities of the Corps to the Iraqis during the Gulf War?
Bart is a paid shill of the republicans. Please ignore his posts.
ReplyDeleteIf such a law were in place – threatening journalists with fines and penalties for exposing secret programs of the president -- would we ever have found out about this?:
ReplyDeleteThose activities had started in 1970 after The New York Times revealed a secret bombing campaign against neutral Cambodia in Southeast Asia was being conducted as part of the American war effort in Vietnam. Following the revelations, Nixon ordered wiretaps of reporters and government employees to discover the source of the news leaks.
In 1971, the Pentagon Papers were published in The New York Times, detailing the U.S. Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. A "Plumbers" unit was then established by Nixon aides in the White House with the sole purpose of gathering political intelligence on perceived enemies and preventing further news leaks. A team of burglars from the "Plumbers" then broke into a psychiatrist's office looking for damaging information on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press……
On Saturday, July 27, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.
Some of us understood what was going on as we watched ashen-faced TV reporters changing the map of Florida from blue, back to gray, on Election Day, 2000, after the state had been called for Gore based on exit polling which showed him with a plurality of over 50,000 votes. I was fortunate to be watching the returns with a young friend who grew up in Soviet Russia and wasn't fooled for three seconds.
ReplyDeletePeople from behind the "Iron Curtain" know a frigging coup when they see one, and are startled only by the naivete of Americans - most of whom allowed themselves to be lulled by the lullaby, by all the nonsense about spoiled chads, all the malarkey about the Palm Beach ballot having been "designed by a Democrat," all the controlled chaos.
Cleland almost certainly won Georgia in 2002 - that's based on pre-election polling which showed him the overwhelming leader - unfortunately, we can never know the real vote count, because Georgia had newly purchased, statewide, its inscrutable Diebold touchscreen computers. (Fittingly, the state exit polls from that election have never been released. Some kind of "computer malfunction" experienced by the polling company, VNS.) Interesting that finally Cleland is starting to take a stand on vote rigging - a little late - although as far as I know, he still hasn't publicly brought up his own race.
Had Cleland and Wellstone taken their rightful seats, of course, the Democrats would have retained a majority in the Senate.
It was predictable that the Republicans would regain the Senate in 2002; I remember a web article accurately predicting what happened, and not based on the pre-election polls either, which showed that the Democrats would retain the Senate and probably gain seats. No, based on the fact that getting back the Senate was the top goal of the oiligarchy, and they tend to achieve their top goals. It's easy; you just cheat. If the other side doesn't have the guts to call you on it, you're in like Flynn.
Kerry was too afraid, or uninformed, or who-knows-what, to call his opponents out for cheating, even though he had four years to ponder what had happened to Al Gore. Before long, his wife was publicly saying she thought he'd won; privately, he said the same to Mark Crispin Miller. But too late.
Academic reseach on the exit polls nationwide and in swing states show that Kerry won with a very high degree of certainty. Indeed, the late afternoon edition New York Times announced that the nationwide exit polls put him ahead by three percent, which, they said, was beyond the margin of error.
Exit polls are just as reliable in the United States as they are in the Ukraine. And this was not a clean election, where we have some reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the "actual results" in spite of the exit polls. How come so many people pressed the screen for Kerry and on reviewing their ballots learned they'd voted for Bush? Did the machines program themselves to do that? Never investigated by a grand jury, but it should have been. Along with a large number of other problems documented by the Conyers Commission and widely unreported in the mass media.
This is a wholly criminal government. That they would seek to consolidate and tighten their grasp on power was predictable. For anyone who read The Project for a New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the war in Iraq was predictable. It was about obtaining an American base in the Middle East and part of the larger, megalomaniacal plan to make America unchallengeable on Earth and in Space.
This path we are on is a well-trodden path from the 20th century, only with more sophisticated technology; the main mystery is why these fools want us to walk us down it again. In the end, turning the lights out in a democracy benefits nobody.
I'm glad to see people waking up. Many of us have been shouting in the wilderness for five years.
Maybe it's not too late. But I wouldn't bet on it. And the Democrats need to do more than come up with a "clear, positive agenda". They need to make sure our voting booths are secure, first and foremost.
Sorry Bart, I get easily nauseated when I accidentally stumble into a vortex of circumambulating logic and shape-shifting rhetoric. Why don’t you address your hatred and vitriol to the object of your obsession: the NYT.
ReplyDeleteFuck off Bart. Your duplicity and hair-splitting know no bounds. This is NOT about giving classified information to the enemy. I know you want it to be about that but it isn't.
ReplyDeleteYou go ahead and keep trying to portray good Americans who value the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the rule of law as traitors because they are willing to expose the illegal and traitorous actions of government officials - namely BushCo. In the end you are nothing more than a smear merchant. It must make you sad to find that no one but the 20% neo-fascist base are buying your smears. Honestly I am not sure how you can live with yourself.
In any case I am done with you.
Thank you for bringing this to light. It's funny I came across this news on your blog when it should be on the CNN headlines. Thanks to Digg.com, too.
ReplyDeleteThis proposition violates Americans freedom of speech and therefor I don't think it will pass. At least.. let's hope not.
Why can't people just be honest?
The DeWine bill, for which about half of your party will vote, expressly states that the NSA program is legal and that any further disclosures about that program will be illegal.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is just factaully false, Bart. Even with the DeWine legislation, there is still certain types of eavesdropping that would be criminal. If, for instance, the Administration was eavesdropping on Americans without warrants and without reporting it to the Subcommittee, that would be a criminal offense.
Under the DeWine legislation, reporting that criminal behavior on the part of the Admininstration would itself be a crime, even if no classified information was disclosed when reporting it.
Please stop saying that the DeWine bill only criminalizes the disclosure of legal eavesdropping programs because it's just false. It would also make it a crime to report that the President is breaking the law -- which is, of course, exactly why the legislation contains these provisions.
Oh, I forgot to add what a terrible signal the reporting of Nixon’s illegal activities gave to our enemies abroad – we were after all at war, you know.
ReplyDeleteAnd that terrible signal, for Dr. Frist, and other cult members who are too dense, too dishonest, and too partisan to realize it, is this: the US is a nation of laws, where even the President is accountable to the will of the people.
Oh, boy did the U.S. ever suffer for that terrible signal and we’ll never ever do it again – if Bushites have their way.
I know I'm going to regret this.
ReplyDeleteTo Bart: you present the standard dichotomous choice between a free press and an 'unsecure' nation versus a nation 'secure' but with a press that cannot upon risk of imprisonment and worse inquire or report on activity by the government that may or may not run counter to statutory law. Sorry, no matter how you parse it, that's what you are arguing.
The reality of course is far murkier.
The underlying issue of this mess is not the fact the President has authorized electronic surveilence, purportedly to monitor and guard against future terrorist attacks. I have yet to read a post or comment here that argues against him taking such a step.
The problem lies in the fact he did so by engaging a program that falls under a pre-existing statutory framework (ie. FISA), but consciously and deliberately declined to seek warrants to conduct this surveilence as mandated by the statute, a point he himself has admitted in public.
The offered defense that it is only targeted on 'international calls' is hard to credit in the extreme, if only because this Administration has proven less than trustworthy in its actions and pronouncements (Medicare, Social Security, Iraq, Katrina, and so on). Perhaps, just perhaps the program is targeted like they claim; unfortunately, their past and the cast of characters involved doesn't give one a sense of confidence on this.
Were he to allow full oversight by the designated Congressional committees, that might defuse a great deal of the tension and concern. As it is, based upon the public statements to date, only the broadest overview of the program was provided, so thin on details that a clear assessment of the program's reach and legality was impossible. The Administration's continued resfusal (likely its only practical defense at this point) to allow for a comprehensive investigation into it only adds further fuel to the fires of suspicion.
It should be further added that we, as a nation, are not really "at war" in either a strictly legal or technical sense. Yes, we are in conflict with an amorphous network of individuals and an ideology that but for a few different names is nearly a twin to Christian Reconstructionism. Yes, we have a large number of troops on the ground in Iraq, their mission and objectives no clearer today than they were when they invaded the country in 2003. Indeed, by the more rational accounts I've read, its their very presence that is fueling much of the current insurgency.
And before you start with the whole "9/11" nonsense, I live in New York City. And, but for a small quirk in timing that morning, I would have been in the Twin Towers when those planes hit. I know first hand what Al Qaeda can accomplish. Plus the whole "Saddam-Al Qaeda connection" was absurd to begin wtih. If Iraq is a haven for anti-American terrorists and training, it is only because the invasion in 2003 made it so.
And please, don't start waving the AUMF as proxy for a declaration of war. It authorized the President to use military force to ensure Iraq disarmed of its WMDs. That task was accomplished (technically back in the 1990s); time to get out of Dodge.
In the meantime, our port facilities remain dangerously unsecure, as are the rail systems and airports. Al Qaeda still exists, and virtually every move by this Administration only re-inforces the image that America seeks empire at the cost of the rest of the world, virtually proving us as what Bin Laden and his ilk paint us as.
That said, Bart, have you seriously pondered the long-term consequences of this Pandora's Box you are insisting remain open and unexamined? George W Bush will not remain in the White House forever, nor will the Republican Party hold both Houses indefinitely. Setting the precedent that a sitting President can ignore inconvenient laws practically ensures a continuence of such bad practices, and there are plenty of targets here within US borders that can be deemed 'subversive'.
Are you as prepared to allow President Hillary Clinton the same deference as you are George W Bush? A simple yes or no, please (though I believe I already know the answer).
For myself, I believe the answer lies beyond the simple dichotomy you have embraced: the press can't go around willy-nilly reporting on top secret programs, but neither can or should the US government be allowed to circumvent either the Bill of Rights or US Code simply because it proves temporarily inconvenient to a desired goal. This is why Whistleblower protections are needed, as is detailed Congressional oversight and investigations.
I'm not naive enough to think this will be an easy balance to strike, but neither am I so overwhelmed with terror at the existence of Bin Laden and his ilk that I am willing to discard our laws and liberties in favor of a chimeric 'security' administered by an Administration of demonstrated incompetence and corruption unseen since the 19th century.
Any response?
Well I guess that Sandra Day O'Connor was correct when she warned of dictatorship...
ReplyDeleteI've considered whether or not the current Conservative movement can lead us to fascism, and I've concluded that it can't. Totalitarianism perhaps, but not fascism. Read "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert Paxton, apply his criteria, and judge for yourself.
ReplyDeleteThis does not mean that I am any less concerned. Indeed, I think most people are thinking of totalitarianism and/or authoritarianism when they say "fascism." Whatever you call it, it is unAmerican
As many have noted, "Freedom isn't free."
ReplyDeleteWe have to take risks for our freedom. One of those risks might be letting them know we're listening to them. (To me this seems like a mighty tiny risk, since they know this already.) Another risk might be signalling to them that Americans have a variety of views on some topics, and they might be able to exploit that. Yet another risk is imposing limits on ourselves that somewhat interfere with our ability to act like Josef Stalin.
These ARE risks. We can decide to take them or not, for our freedom. My daughter can grow up in freedom, or she can grow up learning to watch her words. Some, in history, have decided to "mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Others take their freedoms more lightly.
(And anyone who themselves goes to work every day to detect smuggled special nuclear materials is free to criticize me on the grounds that I do not take national security seriously, and am not myself willing to take personal risks for it.)
Unfortunately, the "MSM" is owned and operated by some of the largest, most powerful, multi-corporations on the face of the planet. I don't wonder which side they're on.
ReplyDeleteI think we have a David-And-Goliath scenario.
Now I will go and read everyone else's comments. Perhaps someone said much the same thing. If so, I apologize for the redundancy.
Also, I have no answers.
Wait...yes I do...have answers, that is. It's just that in the good 'ol U.S. of A. not many want to hear them.
ReplyDeleteAmerica will WAKE UP sooner or later, I just hope it's not too late. George W. BushCo is the terrorist and it IS insane, rh.
Let there be truth and light.
...and the devil take the hindmost, since he is an asshole. Speaking of which, here's a funny, short filmstrip that I'd like to share with you all. You'll have to cut-and-paste since I don't know how to link on here, but it's worth it.
http://www.filmstripinternational.com/
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteDo you have the Gonzales quote where he told Judiciary that if any senator thought the program was unconstitutional, he or she SHOULD HAVE raised objections with "either" the WH or the press? I'm really asking -- it's a club we should keep beating them with.
Ping "The Queen": a quick lesson in html (I was really glad when someone taught me!):
ReplyDeleteTo insert a link, you type the following, omitting the *s (if I really typed in the correct code without them, you wouldn't see it because blogger would read it as html):
<*a* href=ht*tp://url you're linking to>title you want to give link<*/*a*>
That's it. Hope it helps.
I expect that the news media will have to respond aggressively to DeWine's proposed legislation, instead of ignoring or burying the story. This can only be a good thing, as it is in their best interest to create a backlash by the public.
ReplyDeleteOddly, DeWine's legislation may be the undoing of the illegal spying program and perhaps even George Bush.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteBart: The DeWine bill, for which about half of your party will vote, expressly states that the NSA program is legal and that any further disclosures about that program will be illegal.
Your argument is just factaully false, Bart. Even with the DeWine legislation, there is still certain types of eavesdropping that would be criminal. If, for instance, the Administration was eavesdropping on Americans without warrants and without reporting it to the Subcommittee, that would be a criminal offense.
The article to which you linked says no such thing...
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
If the DeWine bill ratifies the NSA "terrorist surveillance program," it is legal - period.
According to your article, the new criminal penalties for leaking contained in the DeWine bill according to your article are limited to the ratified NSA program or another other program which uses FISA.
In contrast, you are postulating without evidence that the President is performing surveillance other than what was disclosed to and ratified by Congress. In that case, the President is doing something outside of the ratified program and FISA which, by the terms of the article, would not fall under the new DeWine leak criminal offense.
In short, your article indicates that the DeWine bill is criminalizing leaks only for the program which it has ratified.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteI know I'm going to regret this.
To Bart: you present the standard dichotomous choice between a free press and an 'unsecure' nation versus a nation 'secure' but with a press that cannot upon risk of imprisonment and worse inquire or report on activity by the government that may or may not run counter to statutory law. Sorry, no matter how you parse it, that's what you are arguing.
You are pretty close.
My argument is predicated on the press determining before publication that the activity is actually illegal, not possibly illegal.
If the President is indeed acting illegally in conducting intelligence gathering, then the Press may argue in defense that the illegal activity could not have been legally classified.
The reality of course is far murkier.
The underlying issue of this mess is not the fact the President has authorized electronic surveilence, purportedly to monitor and guard against future terrorist attacks. I have yet to read a post or comment here that argues against him taking such a step.
I have repeatedly explained to you why gaining warrants under this program is nearly impossible. I am tired of repeating myself and arguing the point with people who have never written an affidavit to get a warrant. Suffice it to say that is why both the DeWine and Specter bills essentially abandon the warrant requirement.
Assuming that the NSA Surveillance program cannot get warrants surveilling captured al Qeada telephone numbers, how many of you would support the NSA conducting warrantless surveillance with Congressional supervision?
My guess is that nearly none of you would. In that case, you are opposing the surveillance of almost all captured al Qeada telephone numbers.
The offered defense that it is only targeted on 'international calls' is hard to credit in the extreme, if only because this Administration has proven less than trustworthy in its actions and pronouncements (Medicare, Social Security, Iraq, Katrina, and so on).
I don't care that you don't like or trust this President. Mr. Clinton was a pathological liar, but that doesn't mean that you should credit all the whack job theories about him having Vince Foster murdered and other similar slanders without proof.
Provide me with evidence or stop making the claims.
Were he to allow full oversight by the designated Congressional committees, that might defuse a great deal of the tension and concern.
It does for me. The review of any program by 8 members of the opposite political party is likely to be much more intense than the alleged "rubber stamp" FISA court.
The Administration's continued resfusal (likely its only practical defense at this point) to allow for a comprehensive investigation into it only adds further fuel to the fires of suspicion.
The WP has already reported that the WH has answered every question about the means and methods of this program in a series of briefings to the Congress. Rockefeller had 450 questions answered by the NSA in the past two weeks.
When Howard Dean & Co. are talking about an "investigation," they are really talking about an opportunity to conduct fishing expeditions to find dissenting legal memos like the the Kris materials so they can say "gotchya" and call for nonsense like censure during the run up to the election.
It should be further added that we, as a nation, are not really "at war" in either a strictly legal or technical sense. Yes, we are in conflict with an amorphous network of individuals and an ideology that but for a few different names is nearly a twin to Christian Reconstructionism.
I'll ignore the co-flation of Christianity with the al Qaeda Islamic fascist death cult.
However, our men and women are fighting and sometimes dying fighting these people around the world. You may think that you are not at war with them, but they are definitely at war with you.
Are you as prepared to allow President Hillary Clinton the same deference as you are George W Bush? A simple yes or no, please (though I believe I already know the answer).
Yes. I have full confidence in the oversight by the GOP members of the congressional intel committees.
The Clintons were not nearly as clever as they thought themselves to be. It didn't take long at all to find out about their rifling through the FBI files of political opponents.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWell I guess that Sandra Day O'Connor was correct when she warned of dictatorship...
O'Connor was complaining about GOP efforts to hold the most anti-democratic branch of government to some form of accountability.
Maybe the former Arizona legislator didn't like all the flack she received for her legislation from the bench...
See, now. I let you soothe me before. But my cynicism is only being encouraged by this amazing lack of anti-americanism. I am just completely and utterly mindblown that this NSA wiretapping crime is resulting in new laws built around keeping the spying going, and punishing us for knowing about it. Bye, Bye, democracy! It's been real. Although, really, I hardly knew ye.
ReplyDeleteBart, I've debated you before with some sense of civility, and you've even managed to pass yourself off as a human being at times. Your concerns are priorities are dangerously migsuided in a way that makes you a threat to our country, but you're not a bad guy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm done talking to you, and I think you should get the fuck out of here. You're not making any friends, you're not influencing anyone. Your arguments are pale, shallow, and lacking in honor. Yes, if Congress legalizes the NSA program, it will become legal, and all that mans is that George Bush broke the law and browbeat the legislature into covering his ass, as if this was Iran.
Retroactive legalization of things after they've already been done is the mark of Cain, Bart. It's the decay of checks and balances, the collapse of the autonomy of congress. It's the decline of the rule of law.
You come here and gloat that reporters could be thrown in jail for revealing information on government programs, and then you toss around the phrase 'to our enemies' - and really, you're DOA right there.
When you said 'our enemies', the subject of your sentence was "the american people". The New York Times didn't fucking send agents into Pakistan to warn Osama Bin Laden about our spying program. They broke the news to the American public that george bush broke the law - they did the quintessential job of the Fourth Estate.
Mike DeWine's bill wants to eliminate the free press in our country. Simple as that. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. Reporting = criminal.
This is no longer the thin edge of the wedge, bart. This is the fire in the Reichstag. Our democracy is at stake, and all you can do is piss and moan about how dare anyone get in the governement's way.
For all your veneers and claims that you'd jump on the impeachment bandwagon if GWB was found to have violated the law, I don't believe you anymore. Congress' law logically admits the George Bush broke the law. And here you stand without shame.
You're not welcome here, bart. This space is reserves for people who want to live in freedom, not sell their souls to dictatorship for their peace of mind.
Bart, please tell us which conservative think-tank you and the other posters using the name are working at.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart, please tell us which conservative think-tank you and the other posters using the name are working at.
I'll take that as a compliment.
I am a criminal defense and business attorney working a solo practice in the mountains of Colorado.
However, if you can find a think tank that would pay me for posting, I am never adverse to extra money...
glasnost said...
ReplyDeleteWhen you said 'our enemies', the subject of your sentence was "the american people".
I do not recall if you were one of the several posters here who have told me that we are not really at war. However, I do not share that delusion.
When I said enemy, I meant the enemy.
I personally found the NYT's leaks to be fascinating because I am both a veteran and an attorney. However, that doesn't mean that I have the right to jeopardize national security by demanding receipt of this information.
Unlike you folks, I do not view this through a partisan political prism. I could care less if you folks get this information and spend thousands of hours having wet dreams calling for the impeachment of a president of the opposite party.
With all due respect, you folks don't give me any reason to take you seriously as a political threat. You will all without fail vote for your Dem rep or senator after they vote for the DeWine bill or the Patriot Act or the AUMF or any number of any acts which you claim represent the end of the Republic.
The New York Times didn't fucking send agents into Pakistan to warn Osama Bin Laden about our spying program.
As his speeches over the past year have shown, bin Laden is well aware of what our media has been saying about Mr. Bush.
They broke the news to the American public that george bush broke the law - they did the quintessential job of the Fourth Estate.
Really? Show me where they bothered to make out a case of law breaking against Mr. Bush in the article which blew the NSA program to the enemy.
If there was genuine law breaking, then the NSA program cannot be legally classified and Risen & NYT have nothing to fear legally.
Mike DeWine's bill wants to eliminate the free press in our country. Simple as that. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. Reporting = criminal.
Please explain something to me. If it is illegal for a CIA employee to disclose classified information to the enemy, why isn't it also illegal for Risen and the NYT?
Do you genuinely believe that the Press has a greater First Amendment right than that agent...or you and I?
This is no longer the thin edge of the wedge, bart. This is the fire in the Reichstag. Our democracy is at stake, and all you can do is piss and moan about how dare anyone get in the governement's way.
Hardly. I challenged Glenn awhile back to find me any examples of the Press doing anything like this before Vietnam.
What has changed isn't the need to keep intelligence collection secret. That necessity has existed since the dawn of intelligence collection.
What has changed is the Press thinking that they get to tell the enemy what they please when they please in order to sell papers, national security be damned.
For all your veneers and claims that you'd jump on the impeachment bandwagon if GWB was found to have violated the law, I don't believe you anymore. Congress' law logically admits the George Bush broke the law. And here you stand without shame.
No, this means that Congress wants to maintain some say over a Presidential Article II power which they never attempted to exercise before 1978 because it simply does not exist. This is a separation of powers fight, nothing more.
You're not welcome here, bart. This space is reserves for people who want to live in freedom, not sell their souls to dictatorship for their peace of mind.
Ah, I love it when the PC police show their true belief in "free speech."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI remember seeing Ted Koppel explaining the imbed process and how there would be no military censorship. He pushed the issue by asking the military brass dude who was telling Koppel about it. The GI Joe dude told Koppel he would have to censor himself. They would trust his judgement not to air battlefield plans and alert the enemy and jeopordize our troups. So Ted raised an eyebrow and said, so, whats the plan? And the brass told him.
ReplyDeleteThe only violator of this trust, that I know of was Geraldo Rivera, who drew out the planned attack in the dirt for his teevee audience. He was escorted out of the country.
There is a difference now. The Administration wants to prosecute reporters for publishing the Nsa warrantless domestic spying program. The fact that we are probably listening anytime a terrorist is on the phone should be no surprise, so I don't see this as revealing some national secret--only illegal activity.
I am not familiar with this particular legislation, but a far greater breach of rights has already happened -- with no particular outcry, even from the media.
ReplyDeleteThe President defends his surveillance activities by stating the powers of the Presidency allow him to monitor citizens' communications without a warrant. In effect, the President has declared that the President can negate any portion of the Constitution at will. (If he can negate the 4th amendment, it follows he can negate any other portion of the Constitution).
Once that is accepted, there are no longer any protections in law for anyone.
There is no real need for a law punishing disclosure of activities of the executive branch. The executive branch has already seized all power.
Be afraid. Be very afraid...
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteexcuse me but it would be of interest to know what the ABA - abanet - think of senator/s attempting criminalise them for material submissions such as they made in a covering letter and fairly sizeable members' research and consultation document to the potus.
i understand no reply has been forthcoming to their 13/2/2006 correspondence. both available as pdf at that site..
you may wish to attempt also a little proliferation of these matters.. in the event you have not already, of course..
keep up the good work
This isn't the first time that American Presidents have done things that were unpopular during times of war:
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln suspended the right of 'habeas corpus'.
FDR had mail opened and read before it went overseas.
We remember these men as great Presidents...even though what they did was illegal at the time.
Everyone here so focused on *Bush* and what *he's* doing that everyone seems to be forgetting that we are at war... which gives away the source of your true anger. Didn't Clinton sell missle technology and super-computers which could be used to make nuclear weapons more effective to the Chinese Communists?
Well, I hate to make a decision on a weekend, but when it’s time, it’s time. I came to this site looking for enlightenment. I see the errors of the Republicans and I believe that the only way to change things is to not vote for them. Yes, they provide many alternate means of “sending them a message”. Been around a while and I think I understand how to send them a message. As of now, I can send them the message by voting for a Democrat or by not voting at all. As of now, my decision is to not vote at all. The whackos who inhabit this site have no time from their fever swamp attempts to impeach the President to welcome me and explain why I should vote for a Democrat. They are about what they are about and don’t need my vote (or perhaps others of my ilk who are looking to change) at all. OK. Let’s see how they do without it. I’m through listening to their whacko BushHitler impeachment crap. If any other readers can suggest a site where I can identify with sane Democratic voters, please give me a steer. To those following Mr. Greenwald.....
ReplyDeleteBart said:
ReplyDeleteReally? Find me a single case which interprets the First Amendment to give the Press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
False choices again Bart. Of course the first amendment doesn't give the press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies.
Find me a single case since the 1978 FISA act where the press has been indicted and convicted of giving secrets to the nations enemies.
Just because in your obviously obsessed mind the NYT article on the NSA spying gave secrets to the nation's enemies doesn't make it so!!
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteIf the DeWine bill ratifies the NSA "terrorist surveillance program," it is legal - period.
May I remind you that the Congress passing any ex-post facto law is also illegal.
Bart said:
ReplyDelete"My argument is predicated on the press determining before publication that the activity is actually illegal, not possibly illegal.
If the President is indeed acting illegally in conducting intelligence gathering, then the Press may argue in defense that the illegal activity could not have been legally classified."
Are you now trying to argue both sides of the question Bart? You have repeatedly blasted the NYT article as having been illegal and that the reporters should be thrown in jail with the key thrown under it.
Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the Times went to Bush a year before the story was printed and again just before printing to alert him to the fact that they were going to do so. Bush made no attempt to quash the story on national security grounds nor have any grand juries been convened or indictments issued after the fact.
So are you now sayng the program could not be legally classified?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"Everyone here so focused on *Bush* and what *he's* doing that everyone seems to be forgetting that we are at war... which gives away the source of your true anger. Didn't Clinton sell missle technology and super-computers which could be used to make nuclear weapons more effective to the Chinese Communists?"
Congress is the only Government entity that can declare war and as of yet I have seen no such declaration.
On the accusations about Clinton true but:
A: Clinton hasn't been in office for over five years. Bush is doing these things now.
and:
B: It was a Republican controlled Congress which failed to take action against Clinton for what he did. Nope They impeached him for getting an out of marriage BJ in the WH and lying about it but apparently the selling of super computers and missle technology to the Chinese was A-OK with the Republicans.
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteBart said: Really? Find me a single case which interprets the First Amendment to give the Press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies?
False choices again Bart. Of course the first amendment doesn't give the press the right to give secrets to the nation's enemies.
OK, then I don't want to hear any more nonsense about how this bill violates the First Amendment.
notherbob2 said...
ReplyDeleteWell, I hate to make a decision on a weekend, but when it’s time, it’s time. I came to this site looking for enlightenment.....
You know what Bob how about you just do the research yourself and vote your conscience?? I love this typical Republican "all about me" attitude. You think we are obligated to convince you to come on over and join us. You are sooo important. That "independent" voter (that always votes republican) says - Damn you fever swamp crazies! I am important! I demand an explanation, some coddling, an ego boost! Convince me! Me Me Me.
Bob if you can not do the research yourself or if you do not already see that voting for anything other than a conservative is naturally the best course of action at this point then forget it.
Bob why don't you simply vote your conscience. You want me to go out of my way to try and convince you - to beg you - Bob if you do not have enough love of your country and enough spine to do the right thing then nothing I can say will change your mind anyway.
I see a parallel in what is happening in our little island of the UK.
ReplyDeleteWe have a government who takes great pains to point out that all that they are doing is "in our best interests" and yet they are setting up a poweful prescedent for the future. Namely that if, one day, we get a government in power that doesn't have our best interests at heart, they are simply one flick-of-a-switch away from converting our nation into a police state: ID cards, more CCTV cameras trained on us than any other "democracy" in the west, licence-plate recognition cameras on our roads, the criminalisaton of free speech through laws such as the one against glorifying terrorism, detention of people indefinitely without charge.....
I am currently re-reading George Orwell's "1984" and it is proving to be at the same time enthralling and disturbingly prophetic all at the same time.
Alfie Goodrich
Wales, UK.
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteBart said: If the DeWine bill ratifies the NSA "terrorist surveillance program," it is legal - period.
May I remind you that the Congress passing any ex-post facto law is also illegal.
I agree. Both the ratification and the new criminal penalties would both take affect after the bill is signed.
The Dems are free to seek their impeachment with my encouragement.
Bart said: "My argument is predicated on the press determining before publication that the activity is actually illegal, not possibly illegal. If the President is indeed acting illegally in conducting intelligence gathering, then the Press may argue in defense that the illegal activity could not have been legally classified."
Are you now trying to argue both sides of the question Bart? You have repeatedly blasted the NYT article as having been illegal and that the reporters should be thrown in jail with the key thrown under it.
Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the Times went to Bush a year before the story was printed and again just before printing to alert him to the fact that they were going to do so. Bush made no attempt to quash the story on national security grounds nor have any grand juries been convened or indictments issued after the fact.
The Pentagon Papers decision by the Supremes held that the Government may not compel prior restraint on publication of such materials, but may prosecute for violation of the Espionage Act and several other statutes listed in the opinion.
Bush did everything he could, including providing the legal authority (which is mentioned in the Risen book) and personally pleading with the NYT on the telephone.
So are you now sayng the program could not be legally classified?
No. What I am saying is that illegal activity cannot be legally classified. Thus, if the NYT can convince a jury that the program was illegal, they can argue that it was improperly classified and there was no violation of the Espionage Act.
what about the reporters, who report on the reporters reports?
ReplyDeletehow much more proof do u need that president Bush is the real terrorist... by the time he's done his term.. The USA will be the land of the not so free..... This is a disturbing time for the USA.. to have a president who is more incompetent than a mentally challenged person...it is actually more dangerous for the rest of the world.. To have an idiot at the helm of the most powerful military and with a load of nuclear arsenal that can make this earth a waste land. God is the only one who can help us all now. some body do the world a favor.. and get rid of him... preferably sooner rather than later....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
ReplyDeleteTo Bart:
ReplyDeleteAs a recently retired SpecOps operative who has had extensive experience in REAL WORLD counterterrorist operations (Not just Fox News reports, as I can tell is the case with you), perhaps you can tell me how restrictions on freedoms translates into a more secure country?
Before you answer with stupidity, let me tell you it never does. Large terror organizations like Al Queda can be prevented from striking with existing safeguards. We knew about them and their plot before they attacked, as evidenced by the 911 Commission, its just that no one was listening to the signs. And hell, we trained them, so maybe the best defense is a change in foreign policy.
Either way, the was plenty of time to at least limit the destruction of 9-11. Stupidly, interception flights were scrambled to a patrol formation off of New York shores, and had arrived several minutes before the second plane struck WTC. There was time to put that second flight down over the water, which would have save thousands of lives in the tower, but bad leadership, and poor planning led to more bloodshed.
Al Queda is really not as dangerous as the media would like you to believe. They are no more dangerous than numerous domestic militias, or even the larger organized street gangs, and can be best combatted on an individual level, of teaching normal citizens to look for red flags, and taking certain safety precautions. Chances are still more likely that you are going to be murdered by the 18th Street gang, than you are by Al Queda. It would be nice if Bush and his administration would devote one tenth of our DoD resources to this international threat with ties to Mexican and Colombian resources, instead of invading what was at the time a soveriegn nation. (Not that Saddam was a great guy, but Bush senior did authorize putting him in play when he was in the CIA).
Bart said: If the DeWine bill ratifies the NSA "terrorist surveillance program," it is legal - period.
ReplyDeleteDarth Sidious/The Emperor/The bad guy from Star Wars said: I will MAKE it legal.
Yeah, real stellar argument there. I don't know if you've watched The Phantom Menace but if you did you'd see the parallels. Also, when Saddam gassed the Kurds after their 'assassination attempt' it was legal... Because he said so. That's how their legal system was set up and the USA appears to be following suit, as it's remarkably effective in shutting up dissenters, and making sure nobody else ever hears what they were complaining about in the first place... Or that they aren't AROUND to make any more complaints. If this bill gets passed it will be legal because the OTHER 'Butcher of Baghdad' says you were the one that made it legal... and any attempts to discover if the truth is anything otherwise will be dealt with severely as investigators and reporters would be sticking their noses in 'government business' which is classified.
Also, what everyone's in a huff about is the fact that it doesn't have to be sensitive information. It could be a report on the spy activities at a tupperware party.
I trust you've heard of and recall that debackle? Well, that's all I've got for now. I may not have a degree in criminology but I've got a reasonable amount of common sense and the amazing ability to recognize when a spiked-steel-rod is being jammed where the sun don't shine.
Sounds like reporters better purchase and start using Evidence Eliminator, so that evidence cannot be recovered from their computers.
ReplyDelete