The administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. The video is here.
It really is hard to imagine any measures which pose a greater and more direct danger to our freedoms than the issuance of threats like this by the administration against the press. If the President has the power to keep secret any information he wants simply by classifying it -- including information regarding illegal or otherwise improper actions he has taken -- then the President, by definition, has complete control over the flow of information which Americans receive about their Government.
An aggressive and adversarial press in our country was intended by the founders to be one of the most critical checks on abuses of presidential power, every bit as much as Congress and the courts were created as checks. Jefferson said: "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." The only reason the Founders bothered to guarantee a free press in First Amendment is because the press was intended to serve as a check against Government power.
And the only reason, in turn, that the press is a check against the Government is because it searches for and then discloses information which the Government wants to keep secret. That is what investigative journalism, by definition, does. The Government always wants to conceal its wrongdoing from the public, and the principal safeguard in this country against that behavior is an adversarial press, which is devoted to uncovering such conduct and disclosing it to the country.
Virtually every issue of political controversy during the Bush administration has been the result of the disclosure to a journalist by a concerned Government source that the administration is engaging in illegal, improper and/or highly controversial conduct. Whatever criticisms one wants to make of the American press -- and such criticisms are numerous -- it is still the case that what we do know about this Administration's conduct is the result of the press. Literally, if George Bush had his way -- if government sources were sufficiently intimidated out of disclosing classified information and journalists were sufficiently intimidated out of writing about it -- we would not know about any of these matters:
* Abu Ghraib
* The Bybee Torture Memorandum
* The use of torture as an interrogation tool
* The illegal eavesdropping on Americans without warrants
* The creation of secret gulags in Eastern Europe
* The existence of abundant pre-war information undermining and even negating the administration's WMD claims
* Policies of rendering prisoners to the worst human rights-abusing countries
Our Government would be engaging in all of this conduct, and worse. But we would not know about any of it. We would just be going merrily along our way, completely ignorant of the fact that the Bush administration has undertaken the most unimaginably radical and disturbing conduct in the name of the United States. We would all be Hugh Hewitt and John Hinderaker -- incapable of doing anything other than obediently praising the Commander-in-Chief and reciting the view of the world which the administration wants us to have because we would not know any better.
If this world were implemented, the only information about the Government which we would have is the information which the Bush administration wants us to have -- i.e., information which reflects well on it and which enhances the Glory of the president. Any information which reflects poorly on the president or which reveals any of his controversial and improper behavior would be concealed.
The only "leaked" information which we would ever hear is information which bolsters the administration's views (such as pre-war claims by Ahmed Chalabi about the existence of Iraqi chemical weapons) or which depicts the President as Our Hero and Protector (like the time he saved the “Liberty Tower” from destruction, or the way he ordered an innovative high-tech scheme to detect unusual levels of radiation in our neighborhood mosques). But leaks which the administration doesn't want us to know because they politically harm the president would never happen because those who are privy to such information (government employees and journalists alike) would be too fearful of criminal prosecution to inform us about it.
That is what this is all about. There is not a single instance -- not one -- which reflects any harm to our national security as a result of any of these disclosures. The press goes out of its way to avoid disclosing information which could harm national security -- the Times concealed all operational details of the NSA program when it disclosed that the President was eavesdropping without warrants and the Post concealed the location of the secret gulags in Eastern Europe when reporting that they existed. These disclosures trigger public debate over highly controversial matters and, as a result, often harm the President politically. But none of them is an example of gratuitous disclosure of secret information intended to harm national security.
That is how our country has operated for at least the last century, through two world wars and scores of other military conflicts. The press reports classified information to the extent that doing so brings to the public's attention legitimate matters of political debate, and it exercises self-restraint by concealing information which could harm national security and which is unnecessary for the debate to be had. And unlike many other countries whom we have never (until now) aspired to copy, we do not threaten journalists with prison or prosecute them for publishing such stories, precisely because that conduct is a critical and necessary component of the checks and balances which preserve liberty in our country.
It ought to go without saying that the press cannot serve as a check against the Executive branch if the only information it publishes is information which the President wants it to publish. Then the press becomes Pravda, existing solely to pass along information to citizens which the Government wants it to convey. That's the world where the administration wants Americans to believe that we have to wage war against Iraq to rid it of its WMDs, and so selectively “leaks” to Judith Miller the information which bolsters that claim while concealing the information which undermines it. And the Government's claims then are printed on the front page of The New York Times under the guise of independent reporting, without any contrary information being disclosed.
When the Government can control which information is disclosed and which information is concealed, newspapers become a government propaganda venue -- an arm of the Government -- rather than any meaningful check on it. I've cited this Jefferson warning several times before, and included it in my book, because it is so prescient and so self-evidently applicable to the Bush administration:
"Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
There simply is no American president, at least in the last century, who has waged war against a free press the way George Bush has. Not even close. Not even Richard Nixon, who hated the press with a consuming passion, tried to imprison journalists. And there is a reason why the Bush administration has as its highest priority these attacks on the press. And Jefferson told us the reason why: because the press is the "first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
Even during World War I, the Congress refused to include in the Espionage Act of 1917 a provision which Woodrow Wilson wanted to allow criminal prosecution against any journalists who -- in a time of war -- disclosed information which the President deemed to be "of such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy." (h/t Cynic Librarian). The debate regarding that amendment makes abundantly clear that it was rejected because the grave dangers from stifling an aggressive and free press -- even during war -- far outweigh the “benefits” of eliminating one of the sole checks on the Government's ability to control the flow of information.
Why were we able to defend our national security throughout the 20th Century without imprisoning journalists? Why have we suddenly reached a point where our Government is too weak to defend our country without trying to stifle a free press by threatening journalists with imprisonment? Why can't George Bush defend the country without destroying almost every traditional institution and practice in our country to which presidential administrations of both parties have, for decades if not longer, managed to adhere?
A prohibition on imprisoning journalists for fulfilling the function which the Founders intended is just another defining tradition and principle of our country which the Bush administration is attempting to dismantle. Whether they actually prosecute journalists or not, the threat to do so -- combined with the knowledge that they possess the means to investigate their telephone calls -- by itself has a highly damaging deterrent effect on vigorous investigative journalism. This administration is obsessed with eliminating the few remaining checks on their ability to operate in secret, and there is nothing which can advance that goal more than official threats of imprisonment of journalists -- which, as amazing as it is, is exactly what happened this weekend.
UPDATE: One of the most striking aspects of these escalating attacks on the press is just how silent the major media outlets are about any of this. The Attorney General threatened journalists with prison this weekend on national television. Shouldn't the Times and the Post be editorializing against those threats, at the very least? And yet, from what I've seen today, no newspaper has published an editorial response to the administration. Just silence.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteLots of good points here. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the folks at Wired who released the Klein documents this morning.
Is it 1974 yet?
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to hear what Bart and his fellow travellers say to this one.
ReplyDeleteNot fair, glenn, our Great Decider won 2 accountabilty moments, earned a fortune in political capital and Gonzalez was appointed with the cooperation of both parties. If we have to sacrifice free press and our basic freedoms because that is the way our president chooses to spend his political capital, that is his right.
ReplyDeleteOH WAIT! We don't have free, open, fair, and verifiable elections in this country anymore, 2000 & 2004 were stolen, and chimpy has a disapproval rate of almost 70 percent.
Shame on the democrats that sat on their hands during the confirmation process.
You note: "A prohibition on imprisoning journalists for fulfilling the function which the Founders intended is just another defining tradition and principle of our country which the Bush administration is attempting to dismantle."
ReplyDeleteNixon's and Mitchell's disregard for law, tradition, and principle forced the legislature to be more explicit about what the executive can and cannont do. Bush is pushing the envelope again. What would laws look like that restored the traditions and principles?
Are legislators drafting them now?
To actually imprison journalists would (theoretically) require a trial.
ReplyDeleteSilly rabbit, the constitution is just a "damn piece of paper". The whole point of "national security" usurping the constitution and bill of rights is that we don't have any rights when our "decider" decides to take them away.
Are legislators drafting them now?
ReplyDeleteNope, on both sides of the aisle they are saying, "Duh, what do ya want me to do today, boss?"
Can this please be the tipping point which spreads the outrage beyond those few of us who've been paying attention.
ReplyDeleteCan this please wake people up!
To actually imprison journalists would (theoretically) require a trial. Bush won't go there. Either he will just threaten, or he will start hauling journalists off to Gitmo. We will know we're in a police state if the latter starts happening.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe he'll just shoot them.
If one can read the link over to KOS that dwbh gave on post #1 and not be TIPPED bigtime, we all just need to start digging bigger foxholes. It is a MUST READ. thanks dwbh.
ReplyDeleteWhat can be done? The outcry should be coming from the opposition party.
ReplyDeleteI don't hear it. If the Democrats cannot mobilize and, although a minority, band together to speak out against these outrages forcefully enough to dominate the debate, does anyone think they will do that if they are the majority?
Aren't there more Democrats in this country than there are illegal immigrants? The latter were more organized and visible when they cared about an issue than one of our two main parties who are elected to run this country?
This is astonishing. There is only one conclusion. They want a silent press to be in place for when they assume office.
Why do the Democrats expect the American people and the press (which is under attack)to be the only "opposition"?
Something is going to have to happen quickly in this country or it's all going to be too late.
Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else and nobody is stepping forth. Changing the players without changing the policies is not going to do anything.
Here's a reason the WP and NYT wouldn't complain about Bush incarcerating journalists.
ReplyDeleteIt's tacitly understood that the threat is directed at independent medium sized papers and blogs.
The NYT and WP are OK with Bush impeding the success of the competition.
It's a brave new media world, baby.
At the risk of Godwinning the thread: Ein Reich, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe First Lawyer protecting the Client-in-Chief.
ReplyDeleteA "leak" is the unofficial release of information. When a government entitity officially "leaks" information to the press in order to influence the public, then it is "planting" information, even if it typically is made to sound like a leak. I think this is an important distinction. We've been talking about the Plame "Leak" and the NSA leak as if they were the same - but they are not even close. Sorting out the language will help people to realize the extent to which this administration is using the press to manipulate the public, and distinguish between the heroes who put their careers on the line to maintain an open democracy and the cowards who use the press to try to shut democracy down.
ReplyDelete...or maybe he'll just bomb their headquarters:
ReplyDeleteNothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.
That was back in December.
When the false "liberal bias of the media" meme no longer sells, the threat of imprisonment is the next logical step.
ReplyDeleteThis issue needs to be aggressively pusued by people who value the freedom of the press.
ReplyDeleteThe administration says that these leeks are a harm to national security. This means that they are definining "national security" to be the political interests of the White House.
Guilt only dreads liberty of speech, which drags it out of its lurking holes, and exposes its deformity and horror to day-light. Horatius, Valerius, Cincinnatus, and other virtuous and undesigning magistrates of the Roman commonwealth, had nothing to fear from liberty of speech. Their virtuous administration, the more it was examined, the more it brightened and gained by enquiry. When Valerius, in particular, was accused, upon some slight grounds, of affecting the diadem; he, who was the first minister of Rome, did not accuse the people for examining his conduct, but approved his innocence in a speech to them; he gave such satisfaction to them, and gained such popularity to himself, that they gave him a new name; inde cognomen factum Publicolae est; ["Then he was named Publicola."] to denote that he was their favourite and their friend. Latae deinde leges. Ante omnes de provocatione, adversus magistratus ad populum, ["Then laws were proposed, the first of them a law concerning appeal against the magistrates to the people."]
...
Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty; they prosper and die together: And it is the terror of traitors and oppressors, and a barrier against them. It produces excellent writers, and encourages men of fine genius. Tacitus tells us, that the Roman commonwealth bred great and numerous authors, who writ with equal boldness and eloquence: But when it was enslaved, those great wits were no more. Postquam bellatum apud Actium; atque omnem potestatem ad unum conferri pacts interfuit, magna illa ingenia cessere. ["After the battle of Actium, when the interests of peace required that all power should be conferred on one man, great geniuses ceased work."] Tyranny had usurped the place of equality, which is the soul of liberty, and destroyed publick courage. The minds of men, terrified by unjust power, degenerated into all the vileness and methods of servitude: Abject sycophancy and blind submission grew the only means of preferment, and indeed of safety; men durst not open their mouths, but to flatter. - Cato's Letter #15
EWO... Something is going to have to happen quickly in this country or it's all going to be too late.
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to be waiting for someone else and nobody is stepping forth. Changing the players without changing the policies is not going to do anything.
Throw your tinfoil hat into the ring!
Shargash says Bush won't go there. I disagree. All the bushies have to do is unleash talking points using Judith Miller as justification. Even though Miller was concealing illegalities and not protecting whistleblowers, it won't matter. The talking points will conveniently gloss over this, and so-called journalists will pretend not to notice. They haven't even commented on ABC revelations concerning eavesdropping on reporters by the gov't. They swallow whole every Repub talking point. Nothing will change, especially now that their very freedom is being threatened.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me is that the administration is growing increasingly desperate and there is virtually nothing constraining it. If they and their party still had the support of a large number of 'moderates' they might worry about extreme actions undermining that support. Since they are down to the most fanatical of the cultists who would follow them to armageddon and welcome it, they have nothing left to lose and are free to act in any way they see fit. If anything, their weakness is making them more dangerous.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans in congress have made it clear that there will be no real challenge to or limit of this admnistration's power while they are in the majority. All of their actions from the 9/11 bi-partisan whitewash to the more recent partisan coverups such as the NSA hearings have been entirely for the purpose of taking control the issues and burying them.
While the polls show that the Dem's are likely to gain seats and maybe control of one or both houses, there is an awful lot that could and probably will happen before the election. Even if they didn't manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as usual, there is little reason to believe they would do what is needed. With few exceptions, they have been complicit and failed to take a stand despite having everything to gain and nothing to lose. Why would they act to diminish power they see themselves as the likely heirs to?
At the risk of Godwinning the thread
ReplyDeleteThe whole Godwin's Law has become moot. It no longer applies or needs to be worried about. Really. At some point during the last horrible 6 years the focus of Godwin's Law became a true, necessary, and even accurate assessment of the situation.
The reality on the ground trumps Godwin's Law...unfortunately.
"That is what this is all about. There is not a single instance -- not one -- which reflects any harm to our national security as a result of any of these disclosures."
ReplyDeleteAnytime the Administration tries this spin/blather/obvious BS, they should be asked then and there, exactly how is National Security harmed by these disclosures, and there should be an insistence on hard, independently verifiable information to back up any Administration claims in this regard
If anything, the prying into this Administration's policies and activities needs to become even more intense, as there are obviously more secrets embarassing to the Administration-but NOT any threat to National Security-that need to be publicsehd ASAP
Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787:
ReplyDeleteThe way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, our very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. . . . I am convinced that those societies [as the Indians] which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThe administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. The video is here.
I was surprised it took you this long to post about this. I checked last evening to see if you had something up.
If the President has the power to keep secret any information he wants simply by classifying it -- including information regarding illegal or otherwise improper actions he has taken -- then the President, by definition, has complete control over the flow of information which Americans receive about their Government...
The Government always wants to conceal its wrongdoing from the public, and the principal safeguard in this country against that behavior is an adversarial press, which is devoted to uncovering such conduct and disclosing it to the country.
The problem is that no court of which I am aware will allow the President to classify illegal activity because illegal activity is per se not among his powers. Also, the whistleblower statutes will protect government employees who disclose illegal activity to law enforcement.
Indeed, no one is arguing that the President should be able to classify illegal activity. Therefore, your citation to actual illegal activity at Abu Ghraib and the like are simply knocking down straw men
What Mr. Gonzales was discussing is the felony criminal disclosure to the enemy of a perfectly legal NSA intelligence gathering program successfully identifying enemy agents in the US and probably abroad.
The only reason the Founders bothered to guarantee a free press in First Amendment is because the press was intended to serve as a check against Government power.
The press was never meant to be a check on the use of government power against an enemy at the time of war. If the press disclosed Washington's extensive intelligence gathering to the British during the Revolutionary War, the founder to a man would have condemned this as treason.
Our Government would be engaging in all of this conduct, and worse. But we would not know about any of it.
:::chuckle:::
Despite their disclosure by the press, the Government is still using coercive interrogation techniques, operating detention centers for captured al Qaeda and operating every single NSA intelligence gathering program. The only thing the press accomplished here is to inform the enemy of these programs.
The only illegal action on your list were the actual abuses committed at Abu Ghraib and other locations. By the time the press got ahold of this, the Army was already preparing to prosecute the perps under the UCMJ.
That is what this is all about. There is not a single instance -- not one -- which reflects any harm to our national security as a result of any of these disclosures.
This is a flat out lie and you know it.
How does the disclosure of the means and methods of the NSA telephone surveillance program which the leakers admit stopped two terrorist ops of which he knew and which the WP reported resulted in the identification of around 10 targets per year for which probable cause existed to get FISA warrants not harm national security?
If the convicted al Qaeda financiers and propagandists who claim that the NSA tapped their phones are correct, we have more proof positive of the efficacy of this program.
How does informing the enemy which telephone companies are safe to use because they did not provide call data to the NSA not harm national security?
How does informing the enemy of the location of the detention centers holding their most valuable leaders not harm national security?
How does informing the enemy of the exact interrogation techniques the US will use against their captured terrorists so that they can train their terrorists in resistance techniques not harm national security?
How does providing the enemy with endless propaganda lies such as reports of "torture gulags" in Europe not harm national security?
It ought to go without saying that the press cannot serve as a check against the Executive branch if the only information it publishes is information which the President wants it to publish.
Yet another straw man argument. No one is arguing that the press should be limited to reporting press releases. What is being argued is that the press falls under the same laws as you and I and may not publish classified materials unless they describe an illegal act.
If the NYT thinks that the NSA surveillance program is illegal and improperly classified, then let them argue this defense at their felony criminal trials.
Even during World War I, the Congress refused to include in the Espionage Act of 1917 a provision which Woodrow Wilson wanted to allow criminal prosecution against any journalists who -- in a time of war -- disclosed information which the President deemed to be "of such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy." (h/t Cynic Librarian). The debate regarding that amendment makes abundantly clear that it was rejected because the grave dangers from stifling an aggressive and free press -- even during war -- far outweigh the “benefits” of eliminating one of the sole checks on the Government's ability to control the flow of information.
Apples and oranges.
The Press Censorship Amendment which was rejected was overbroad and most likely unconstitutional. This amendment would have actually done what you fear - criminalizing the publishing of anything the President decides would help the enemy - classified or not. For example, the President could decide to bar the press from publishing casualty figures under this amendment.
In contrast, the provisions of the Espionage Act which were enacted and which the NYT apparently violated bar the release of classified materials like top secret intelligence gathering programs to the enemy.
Why were we able to defend our national security throughout the 20th Century without imprisoning journalists?
Because, until Vietnam, there is only one example I know of the press violating the Espionage act - when a Chicago paper reported the defense plans for Midway before the battle. The only reason FDR did not imprison these criminals is because he did not want to call enemy attention to the story.
UPDATE: One of the most striking aspects of these escalating attacks on the press is just how silent the major media outlets are about any of this. The Attorney General threatened journalists with prison this weekend on national television. Shouldn't the Times and the Post be editorializing against those threats, at the very least? And yet, from what I've seen today, no newspaper has published an editorial response to the administration. Just silence.
These newspaper recognize their legal liability and are doing everything they can to avoid picking a fight. Nearly every court has held against the proposition that the press enjoy any greater freedoms under the First Amendment than do you or I.
Bart, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteWhat court has reviewed the NSA surveillance program and found it perfectly legal?
For that matter, do you know the details and scope of the program?
Without knowing the details and scope, how can you say with any confidence that it would be constitutional if reviewed?
It seems that much of your argument relies on the assumption the Bush administration isn't doing anything illegal and then leveraging this assumption to show that the Bush administration taking new powers is no problem.
If you weren't allowed to use the assumption the Bush administration is good, legal and pure, how far would your arguments get?
BTW, Bart, have the videotapes of the torture at Abu Ghraib been released?
By your logic the government has no power to make these videos classified, since it is concealing illegal activity.
TESTIMONY OF SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH (defending a free press by citing Jefferson's letter to Carrington, among other sources)
ReplyDeleteBEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
APRIL 26, 2000
"CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN ELECTIONS"
The NYT and WP are OK with Bush impeding the success of the competition.
ReplyDeleteGood point, though it is not like they have any competition -- they represent the mighty wurlitzers that "catapult the propaganda" to the lower-tier media that repeats the lie, creating the "echo chamber?"
The illegal spying just becomes another means to control independent medium sized papers and blogs that are not dutifully repeating the lies from the NYT and WP.
Let's generate a sign-on letter for members of Congress saying that arresting journalists for reporting stories is against the First Amendment and the threat of arresting journalists is a highly appropriate tactic because it appears to be a threat.
ReplyDeleteWonder which Congress Critters would sign and refuse to sign.
Full text of Jefferson's letter to Carrington:
ReplyDeleteThe Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826
"THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY CENSORS . . ."
Maybe bloggers should create their own letter to the NYT, WaPo and the other big guys.
ReplyDelete"We've racked our brains for explanations why you wouldn't make a big deal out of the AG threatening to arrest journalists for reporting stories.
"One possibility we fear is that there is an understanding between you and the Bush administration that you aren't going to cover stories to which the Bush administration objects.
"We further fear that you are OK with the Bush administration threatening to arrest journalists from smaller media outlets and bloggers because they (we) are the competition."
Who wants to draft the letter?
Bart @ 1:26 The press was never meant to be a check on the use of government power against an enemy at the time of war. If the press disclosed Washington's extensive intelligence gathering to the British during the Revolutionary War, the founder to a man would have condemned this as treason.
ReplyDeleteBart, let us know when the "terrists" invade, OK? "One if by land, two if by sea." Unless you count those hordes of reconquistas, ("illegal immigrant"), we are the only ones doing any invading around here.
Bart Revere.
ReplyDeleteAnd that was a myth, BTW. The midnight ride of Paul Revere... a myth, like most of the bases for Bart's arguments.
I'll do it, Carl, my morning is free.
ReplyDelete1100 pst post at the The Left Coaster. I'll give it the old college try.
It's paradox, fark this stupid blogger account.
The illegal spying just becomes another means to control independent medium sized papers and blogs that are not dutifully repeating the lies from the NYT and WP.
ReplyDeleteThe assertion of the right to imprison reporters is aimed directly at the major outlets; medium-sized outlets are not likely to get leaks such as NSA spying, Abu Graib etc.
Hey, Bart. This reporter has seen more combat than you ever have. He probably has a higher number of confirmed kills, too.
ReplyDeleteAs Col. Pat Lang notes, "Joe Galloway is the "Ernie Pyle" of my generation and one of the greatest friends the American soldier ever had. He is the reporter who went to LZ X-Ray in 1965 with the First Battalion, Seventh Cavalry Regiment. Yes. He is the reporter in the film "We Were Soldiers."
You should read the e-mail exchange between Galloway and DiRita, Dumsfeld's press spokesman.
Schooling Don Rumsfeld
It's been about 4 1/2 years since the 9-11 attacks, surely a long enough time to determine if this warrantless spying on the US public has paid off in any thwarted terrorsit attacks
ReplyDeleteObviously, since there are NO successes as it relates to warrantlessly spying on the US Public-just the constant rape of our Constitutional by the President and the Attorney General on as constant a basis as possible-then the excuse is that we have to keep quiet about the "successes" due to National Security concerns
Of course, National Security concerns didn't stop this President, Vice President, Karl Rove or Lewis Libby when they deliberately outed Valerie Plame in a hissy fit of political pique, but when have these hypocrites EVER put the public interest above their own selfish agendas?
Keep spinning Bart, at least it's a nondestructive way of dealing with being one of the underwhelming minority still starry-eyed over this clearly incompetent hack currently masquearading as President
And I'm wondering just what AT Gonzales role in outing Valerie Plame was
Does anyone doubt he wasn't asked his opinion before Plame was outed?
Looks like his investigations ought to logically start with himself first
The ONLY ones aiding the terrorists are those raping our Constitution at every available opportunity, and that would be the President and this Administration-and since they're doing al-Qaeda's work in terms of "hating freedoms", then logically, any investigations into who's in contact with al-Qaeda should start with the current occupants at 1600 Pennsylvaina Avenue
I can't recall the last time this country had to countenance obvious Traitors ensconced in the White House like we're currently infested with
The assertion of the right to imprison reporters is aimed directly at the major outlets; medium-sized outlets are not likely to get leaks such as NSA spying, Abu Graib etc.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. Almost every embarrassing fact and scandal plaguing the Bush Administration exists because the large newspapers and/or television networks reported them. I understand the frustration at those media outlets - one could take all week chronicling the legitimate criticism of them and still not be anywhere near done - but the fact is that they are the only organizations equipped to uncover and expose meaningful misconduct on the part of this Administration.
Things are not black and white. The fact that these large media outlets have largely failed to fulfill their journalistic function does not mean that they do not, from time to time, expose misconduct by this administration. The organizations may be corrupt but there are journalists and editors within them who, more and more, are doing what journalists are supposed to do. Why do you think you know about the NSA eavesdropping scandal and the Eastern European gulags? Because the NYT and WP published stories about them against the wishes of the administration.
Despite their flaws, the media has been exposing the secrets of this administration and, for that reason, they are the enemies of this Administration. These threats against journalists aren't directed against the DesMoines Register or the Kansas City Star. They are directed against the NYT, WP, USA Today, CBS News, etc. because those are the only organizations with the resources to threaten the government.
The only beneficiary of this blind hatred of the media - and a refusal to see the good that some of their journalists are doing - is the Bush administration.
Carl Nyberg said...
ReplyDeleteBart, I'll bite. What court has reviewed the NSA surveillance program and found it perfectly legal?
We don't live in North Korea with a presumption of guilt. What case has ever found warrantless intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents in the US to be illegal? Several cases have found this to be perfectly legal.
For that matter, do you know the details and scope of the program?
Without knowing the details and scope, how can you say with any confidence that it would be constitutional if reviewed?
I can only go by what the NYT leakers have revealed. Maybe it is all misinformation, but I cannot imagine what for.
It seems that much of your argument relies on the assumption the Bush administration isn't doing anything illegal and then leveraging this assumption to show that the Bush administration taking new powers is no problem.
None of these are new powers. Presidents have been doing this since the invention of the telephone.
If you weren't allowed to use the assumption the Bush administration is good, legal and pure, how far would your arguments get?
Same distance. All of the law on point is on my side.
BTW, Bart, have the videotapes of the torture at Abu Ghraib been released? By your logic the government has no power to make these videos classified, since it is concealing illegal activity.
They can arguably keep these alleged videos classified under court order while they are being used as evidence. But I cannot see any other ground.
I have just one nitpick with Bart's comment. Bart uses the assumption that the press has no more/no less rights than a citizen has.
ReplyDeleteOn the face of it, this seems to be an appeal to fairness and one that plays on the fear that someone will get more--have more rights--than someone else. The power of this suggestion is very strong in American life, where power, money, prestige, and other things rest on the principle of rights.
This emotionally charged appeal would then seem to work in Bart's favor. We don't like to think that anyone else is getting something that we can't--in principle--get too. This argument sits at the basis of many of Right and Left appeals for justice and equality.
Yet, I think that this appeal, while unsavory, is wrong not because of its implicit legal correctness but because it misses the point. That is, the rights that I have to freedom of expression are different from the rights that news media have. If I read the constitution correctly, freedom of the press is not lumped together with an individual's right to freedom of expression. Freedom of the press stands by itself as another right:
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [First Amendment]
This "freedom... of the press" could be seen from several angles. That is, I could see it from the angle of myself as a citizen who has an implied right to true ideas and information. This right is based on the presupposition that to carry out my duty as a citizen I must have the truest and most accurate information to make an informed political decision.
The second aspect of the right of a free press involves the rights of journalists as journalists. It seems to me that in their role of journalists, they perform a function that is inherently different from that of an individual citizen. This function, I suggest, has attached to it certain rights that go above and beyond those that an individual acting solely as a citizen has.
Bart conflates these two rights. Playing on the emotional appeal attached to the idea of someone having more or getting more via special privileges or rights, he wants to call into play the resentment that often haunts the modern representative democracy framework of government.
Yet, the framers of the constitution appear to have realized that a free press warrants a separable set of rights. These guarantee what further seems to be a necessity in a democracy: the free flow of and access to information that enables citizens to carry out their constitutional right to a free and democratic government.
KingCranky II said...
ReplyDeleteIt's been about 4 1/2 years since the 9-11 attacks, surely a long enough time to determine if this warrantless spying on the US public has paid off in any thwarted terrorsit attacks
That's what Larry Beinhart asked over at HuffPo.
"If someone is calling al Qaeda, we want to know about it.”
Yes, sir, you bet. Alright, General Hayden, you’ve been in charge of finding out if anyone is calling al Qaeda. You’ve spent hundreds of millions, maybe billions. You’ve built a data base to see if anyone is calling anyone who calls in a pattern that an al Qaeda member would call if he were making calls.
More gargantuan sums of money, time and effort.
Line ‘em up and show us the results. Let’s have the perp walk of all the al Qaedas, all the al Qaeda caller uppers you’ve located, investigated, caught, apprehended and brought to trial! With all this horseshit there must be a whole herd of ponies.
Get on the stand and regale with tales of success. Of plots thwarted. Of desperate measures intercepted. Of terrorists captured or killed.
Tell us how you’ve located Osama bin Laden.
It’s been over four and a half years. Unlimited budget. Unlimited military might. No visible moral constraints. Tell us how you’ve tracked him down, hung him high and busted up his ring!
Don’t tell merely that there have been no terrorists incidents since 9/11. It’s a lot tougher action to pull off since then, with every eye of every American, with all the airlines and airports and security companies, the local and state police, immigration and customs, all on alert. We don’t have to hear about all kinds of secret stuff you did to stop the next 9/11.
Let’s not bother with that namby-pampy wimpy liberal stuff about civil rights, the constitution and no one being above the law not even you and the president you rode in on. You’re argument is you gotta do what it takes and the ends justify the means and it is security that makes us safe to enjoy whichever liberties we have left that we would like to enjoy in moderation.
So, let’s take it on your terms. We see the horseshit. Show us the ponies.
Or admit that you have failed. Admit that all this effort and show and money, has bought us nought. Let us count the terrorists caught or interdicted. Let us see that it was only through your less than legal programs that we got them.
It can’t be that your success is just too secret to share. I expect that it’s your failures that hide behind the coy veil of national security.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart @ 1:26 The press was never meant to be a check on the use of government power against an enemy at the time of war. If the press disclosed Washington's extensive intelligence gathering to the British during the Revolutionary War, the founder to a man would have condemned this as treason.
Bart, let us know when the "terrists" invade, OK?
Just off the top of my head...
1993 - First attack on WTC.
2000? - Border patrol stopped a vehicle full of explosives attempting the cross the border with Canada and heading to attack LA.
2001 - Attack on WTC and Pentagon.
2001 - Stopped attack using aircraft from Asia.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
ReplyDeleteIn the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film. This was the Spanish Inquisition...
I usually hate to resort to coarse and non-productive rhetoric, and so I apologize in advance. But you asked a very good question, and it deserves a very truthful--albiet blunt--answer:
ReplyDelete"Why can't George Bush defend the country without destroying almost every traditional institution and practice in our country to which presidential administrations of both parties have, for decades if not longer, managed to adhere?"
Because he sucks.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHey, Bart. This reporter has seen more combat than you ever have. He probably has a higher number of confirmed kills, too.
As Col. Pat Lang notes, "Joe Galloway is the "Ernie Pyle" of my generation and one of the greatest friends the American soldier ever had. He is the reporter who went to LZ X-Ray in 1965 with the First Battalion, Seventh Cavalry Regiment. Yes. He is the reporter in the film "We Were Soldiers."
Great writer. The press could use several hundred more like Galloway.
I would highly recommend Galloway's book and the movie.
Glenn, thanks for a passionate defense of Freedom of the Press. The only thing that dismays me is that it's at all necessary.
ReplyDeleteI've linked this post on my blog, as I often find I do with your work. Thanks for your consistently superb work...
Just off the top of my head...
ReplyDeleteInvasion
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in and of itself.
The term connotes a strategic endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, large forces are needed to hold territory and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller and lighter tactical infiltrations are not generally considered invasions, being more often classified as skirmishes, sorties, targeted killings, assassinations or reconnaissance in force. By definition, an invasion is an attack from outside forces. As such, rebellions, civil wars, coups d'etat, and internal acts of democide or other acts of oppression are generally not considered invasions.
But for the sake of argument, if we go with your definition, I suppose it's alright to make all out war on the political right because they brought down the federal building in OKC.
Bart... I would highly recommend Galloway's book and the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was crap. Very few war movies live up to the books or the historical fact and none directed by that wingnut Gibson ever do. Read the links.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteI have just one nitpick with Bart's comment. Bart uses the assumption that the press has no more/no less rights than a citizen has.
On the face of it, this seems to be an appeal to fairness and one that plays on the fear that someone will get more--have more rights--than someone else. The power of this suggestion is very strong in American life, where power, money, prestige, and other things rest on the principle of rights.
Actually, I was making an observation about the case law rejecting a claim of additional press rights, but like most law this also has a moral dimension of basic fairness and equality.
Yet, I think that this appeal, while unsavory, is wrong not because of its implicit legal correctness but because it misses the point. That is, the rights that I have to freedom of expression are different from the rights that news media have.
Do tell.
If I read the constitution correctly, freedom of the press is not lumped together with an individual's right to freedom of expression. Freedom of the press stands by itself as another right:
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [First Amendment]
This portion of the first amendment is simply listing two means of communications - speech and printed materials. There are no special and greater rights for the press.
All right, Carl, the Big Media post is up at The Left Coaster. It got up there 20 minutes early.
ReplyDeleteI hope I cam across as balanced. I hate many in the press but not all, and we certainly need them. My mother's side of the family is all journalists, and I personally have a few on my hero list.
Still, I am extremely angry at yet another journalism whoring betrayal. What real citizen wouldn't be?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart... I would highly recommend Galloway's book and the movie.
The movie was crap. Very few war movies live up to the books or the historical fact and none directed by that wingnut Gibson ever do.
Have you read the book or seen the movie? No movie ever matches a book's detail, but the impression was the same.
Read the links.
I did. Do you have a particular point to make besides that you don't like Rummy?
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteHere is a good review of the movie We Were Soldiers and Galloway's involvement in its making.
http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_leadstoryLF_022502
From Bart at 2:26PM:
ReplyDelete"Just off the top of my head...
"1993 - First attack on WTC."
A home-grown cell that received external support? Good argument for declaring martial law and interning all Muslims.
"2000? - Border patrol stopped a vehicle full of explosives attempting the cross the border with Canada and heading to attack LA."
Who was responsible for that one, btw? There's never been a definitive account offered.
"2001 - Attack on WTC and Pentagon."
An operation by most accounts nearly a decade in planning, training and delivery. Gee, guess that means we gotta be *real* careful from now on, huh?
"2001 - Stopped attack using aircraft from Asia."
Oh? This is a new one for me. Details and citations, please.
And your earlier post wasn't much better. The AG was stating, rather bluntly in my viewing, that journalists revealing the type of misconduct the NSA program, Abu Ghraib, and the rest demonstrate would be subject to prosecution. He wasn't 'discussing' a blessed thing.
You should also re-examine your claim the President has no power to classify illegal activity. You have, after all, been claiming Article II allows him to unilaterally de-classify material; its no stretch of the imagination or simple common sense he can classify and bury whatever he wants.
You at least are honest enough to admit these activities have continued apace since the press got ahold of it all. Once again however you reveal only your own naiveté in claiming 'the enemy' (never defining concretely who that is, of course) learned anything new from the press on these matters. Likely Al Qaeda cells, tipped off by the President himself shortly after 9/11 that their cell phones could be and were being monitored, already knew they could be targeted by NSA surveillance.
I'd even go a step further and point out none of the accounts I've read about this program reveal nothing of its scope, its methods, the hardware, or the means utilized.
Your laundry list of complaints that these revelations - from which phone companies are cooperating to their 'providing propaganda' - harm national security has some small merit. None of them provide anything strategically or tactically useful to those who would harm us, but it does pretty much confirm to their minds how rotten our country and government is.
Sadly, the fact the Bush Administration has chosen the low road saddles us and its ultimate successors with a deficit of creditability and capability to effectively counter the anti-American sentiments these radicals feed on and recruit through. The fact the Administration's actions fly in the face of both simple human decency and arguably US Statutes doesn't help us any, either.
Your oft-repeated, barely-supportable claim "we are at war" excuses none of this. We've argued the legal angles to death as it is, but I will note that when Glenn raises the point about the Espionage Act, you are rather quick to claim "apples to organges". If we truly are at war, why are you so quick to deny what should be a perfectly legitimate move like the Press Censorship Amendment?
Staw men arguments, indeed.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 2:26PM: "Just off the top of my head... "1993 - First attack on WTC."
A home-grown cell that received external support? Good argument for declaring martial law and interning all Muslims.
Home grown? This attack was launched by an Egyptian terror group which later merged with al Qaeda.
"2000? - Border patrol stopped a vehicle full of explosives attempting the cross the border with Canada and heading to attack LA."
Who was responsible for that one, btw? There's never been a definitive account offered.
al Qaeda or one of it allied Islamic fascist terror groups. These are all included in the first congressional AUMF.
"2001 - Attack on WTC and Pentagon."
An operation by most accounts nearly a decade in planning, training and delivery. Gee, guess that means we gotta be *real* careful from now on, huh?
Yes. This was also the attack whose cell was identified beforehand by the Able Danger data mining project.
"2001 - Stopped attack using aircraft from Asia."
Oh? This is a new one for me. Details and citations, please.
Bush disclosed this right after the NYT informed al Qaeda the NSA was tapping their phones. Google it yourself.
And your earlier post wasn't much better. The AG was stating, rather bluntly in my viewing, that journalists revealing the type of misconduct the NSA program, Abu Ghraib, and the rest demonstrate would be subject to prosecution. He wasn't 'discussing' a blessed thing.
Sorry for using the "wrong" verb...
You should also re-examine your claim the President has no power to classify illegal activity. You have, after all, been claiming Article II allows him to unilaterally de-classify material; its no stretch of the imagination or simple common sense he can classify and bury whatever he wants.
Actually, this claim is completely imaginary.
Show me any case law, statute or constitutional provision allowing the President to classify illegal activities.
The law universally recognizes that the President may classify and declassify any legal executive activity he pleases.
Bart sez: "...no court of which I am aware will allow the President to classify illegal activity because illegal activity is per se not among his powers... Indeed, no one is arguing that the President should be able to classify illegal activity. What Mr. Gonzales was discussing is the felony criminal disclosure to the enemy of a perfectly legal NSA intelligence gathering program..."
ReplyDeleteBut then when Bart is challenged to defend the legality of the president's "perfectly legal" NSA intelligence program, Bart sez: "We don't live in North Korea with a presumption of guilt."
So then, by Bart's own logic, this administration can, indeed, unilaterally classify anything in the world that it wishes to, and imprison any reporter who discusses said unilterally classified material, since any administrative action is, ipso facto, "perfectly legal" until the moment a court finally adjudicates against the administration.
Given that, let's take a look at Abu Ghraib, which Bart sets aside as the lone example of "actual illegal activity," and therefore ineligible for administrative classification. But what makes Abu Ghraib so special? Simply the fact that Graner was convicted. Therefore, by Bart's own logic, the torture and murder at Abu Ghraib was all "perfectly legal" all the way up to January 14th, 2005 (the day Graner was convicted). Before that day, by Bart's logic, the administration would've been within its rights to classify any and all depiction of the "perfectly legal" torture and murder that took place at Abu Ghraib, and, further, the adminstration would've been within its rights to imprison any reporters who publicly reveal the "perfectly legal" classified tortures and murders that were committed there.
Oh, and one more thing about Bart's faith in our administration's press-independent self-policing of its own illegal behavior:
"The only illegal action on your list were the actual abuses committed at Abu Ghraib and other locations. By the time the press got ahold of this, the Army was already preparing to prosecute the perps under the UCMJ.
Bart, you have no idea if the Army would've prosecuted these perps independent of any press attention. To refresh your memory, the Abu Ghraib abuses (which occurred beginning in October of '03) were first publicly reported (by The New Yorker, and 60 Minutes II) in April of '04. But the Army (which had been aware of these allegations for months) did not criminally charge Graner until May 14, 2004.
Whether or not Graner ever would've been charged (much less tried and convicted) without media attention will never be known.
You people slay me. It is to laugh.
ReplyDeleteYou poor, poor, put upon, people.
I have a challenge... can anyone give me two examples of investigative media reporting that boost Bush rather than tear him down? Needless to say, Fox is off limits.
This should be interesting.
Bush disclosed this right after the NYT informed al Qaeda the NSA was tapping their phones.
ReplyDeleteWhich of course means it must be true because, as was demonstrated yesterday ,Bush never lies!
Anonymous at 2:22 PM
ReplyDeleteThat Huffpost Article is exactly what I read this morning as well, and thanks for posting it here, I think it knocks any & all defenses of warrantless spying on US citizens right out of the park
And I'm still waiting for Abu Gonzales to start investigating the Administration's treasonous outing of Valerie Plame for purely political purposes, a National Security vilotaion if there EVER was one
can anyone give me two examples of investigative media reporting that boost Bush rather than tear him down?
ReplyDeleteNo.....
Which proves?
That he really IS as bad as we think!
Better luck next time.
Paul, I agree with your comment that the phenomenon of p(ro/er)secuting journalists must be seen from the larger perspective. As you will know, the manipulation of the press and news stories goes back to Edward Bernays (Hitler's favorite adman) and Walter Lippmann. One of my favorite authors, John Dos Passos, fictionalized this process in his USA trilogy. So, what we see happening today has a long and unhallowed history.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems unique in today's news environment is the trashing of any pretension to presenting hard news. The presumption, I'd argue, in the past was that the news media had a duty to present information that the public could use to make informed decisions. Granted, the issues and information were often distorted and pre-selected, but the news media still gave out the impression that hard news mattered.
Today's media seem to have given up that pretension. The working assumption these days is manifest in the tabloid journalism that we find not only in newspapers but also on TV. Information as infotainment has captured the media boardrooms and their cohort of lower level editors. The ostensible reason for this is that this tabloid trash is what the public wants.
Of course, we could all week debating the issue whether the news gives the public what they want or create that need. From the writings of Bernays and Lippmann and others, the suspicion tend toward the latter, ie, the media create the need as an adjunct to capitalist interests.
It has been suggested by some that the political spin-meisters and public relations professionals are as much caught up in a system that they neither control nor have much influence over. That is, the underlying socio-economic factors are such that the media technorati simply respond to trends and currents as best they can. This possibility, Alastair Hannay writes, is truly sinister.
If Hannay is right, then the modern political context is much more chaotic and prone to disorder than is commonly believed. It shows that the media specialists and politicos are as much outsiders as anyone else. Who is running the show, then, would seem to be those who control the economics, who themselves have merely greater and greater accrual of capital as their number one priority.
Hannay suggests that what's required is for people to gain an outsider's outsider vantage point in respect to the socio-political context. The journalists are key to this vantage point. For without them, citizens in a democratic republic will never be able to gain insight into the atrocious machinations at work in undermining the democratic ethos.
Calling on the spirit of Voltaire, whose journalistic work in the torture and imprisonment of an innocent man set the model for later generations of journalists, Hannay suggests that they must be allowed to fulfill their function as the outsider's outsider.
Therefore, any attempt to p(ro)ersecute the truth-tellers is indeed a sinister development. When the political machinery is marshaled to silence its only critics, there's much more at stake than a journalist's reputation or well-being. Yes, as Glenn notes, the implications for the democratic form of government many cherish is threatened. But--and perhaps more importantly--is the very ethical processes that are required to form individual citizens whose responsibilities include more than simply gratifying consumer appetites.
This true because a country is only as ethically strong as is its instruments for conveying and distributing the truth. Individuals nurtured on and catered to infotainment will lose the ability to ascertain and deliberate about moral and ethical issues. They will not have the ethical character to do so.
I have a challenge... can anyone give me two examples of investigative media reporting that boost Bush rather than tear him down? Needless to say, Fox is off limits.
ReplyDeleteThis should be interesting.
Hmm, I wasn't aware it was the reporters jobs to soothe poor, picked upon Dear Leader W in the least, even though that's EXACTLY what they did with the lead up to the Iraq invasion
But Shooter, here's a challenge for you
How did deliberately outing Valerie Plame make this country SAFER as result?
How did outing the Brewster Jennings front make it easier to recruit the double gents and operatives overseas needed to track and disrupt the transfer of WsMD to rogue regimes, groups & individuals?
Seems to me if the President isn't breaking the law, then he has nothing to worry about
After all, if that's a good enough Administrative stand when it comes to warrantlessly spying on US citizens, then it's a good enough standard for his Administration to adhere to at every opportunity as well
And were you this mollycoddling of the Clinton Administration in all respects as well, or did you completely support the media feeding frenzy over an affair involving two consenting adults?
I have a challenge... can anyone give me two examples of investigative media reporting that boost Bush rather than tear him down? Needless to say, Fox is off limits.
ReplyDeleteTalk about shooting242 fish in a barrel. Check out anything with the byline of the Pentagon's then favorite journalist, Judy Miller, in the New York Times about Iraq before the invasion (e.g. aluminium tubes, etc.) and most of her pieces afterwards. Most of these were on the front page. See e.g. http://www.slate.com/id/2086110.
Then again maybe you meant to ask for investigative reporting that boosted the Bush administration and was not either deceptive or outright false. That would be be a lot harder, even if you didn't rule out Fox and the Weekly Standard.
From Bart at 3:11PM:
ReplyDelete"Actually, this claim is completely imaginary."
You really can't connect the dots, can you?
You want to claim the President has unlimited authority in security matters under Article II, including potentially taking the steps under discussion, yet in the next breath state he has no authority to classify 'illegal activity'.
Is your cognative dissonence that pronounced you can't see the contradiction you present?
Also, if the information is classified, WHO is able to review it to determine it is illegal and therfore should not have been classified?
ReplyDeleteWish we would lock 'em all up -- you know, the lying liars that tell us how bush wins elections, Iraq had WMD, Iran is a threat, that spying is a national security issue...
ReplyDeleteLock the whole bunch of 'em up now - we will never get anywhere with the current cast of misfits catapulting the propaganda.
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteInteger nonummy suscipit magna. Morbi molestie blandit neque. Suspendisse eu leo. Aenean eget erat quis magna aliquam porta. Quisque vestibulum venenatis dolor. In nec ipsum nec mi dignissim gravida. Integer et tortor. Praesent vulputate, diam sollicitudin congue luctus, purus nunc blandit pede, nec euismod dui diam sed nisl. Integer sem diam, malesuada et, vulputate non, molestie eu, orci. Nam viverra ullamcorper ligula. Cras ut nisl. Nunc blandit risus in erat.
Pellentesque malesuada congue risus. Donec arcu leo, blandit id, condimentum in, rhoncus faucibus, nisl. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Sed urna. Nulla eget erat. Ut lectus ipsum, volutpat vel, sollicitudin quis, porta nec, pede. Curabitur at tortor. Pellentesque a massa in nibh dapibus dictum. Sed urna elit, commodo in, iaculis sit amet, pellentesque nonummy, felis. Aliquam feugiat enim sed ante euismod bibendum. Nulla nisl. Sed et dolor ut augue consectetuer fringilla. Cras ut eros. Donec id enim et ante fringilla consequat. Suspendisse lobortis nibh a lorem aliquam molestie. Duis viverra purus id lectus. Phasellus auctor congue dui. Sed malesuada.
Nunc in nunc. Nulla facilisi. Aliquam nec risus. Fusce eleifend elementum leo. Nam faucibus, eros a sagittis sagittis, leo nisi vestibulum est, nec pretium augue est vel nisi. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Morbi rhoncus, turpis rutrum commodo pellentesque, augue nulla pretium purus, in gravida dolor justo vel mi. Aliquam ultrices. Aenean dictum lectus vel ante. Nulla vitae tortor. Ut posuere velit sit amet lorem. Suspendisse potenti. Sed pharetra. Praesent suscipit urna ac nisi.
Integer cursus. Suspendisse placerat. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Morbi quis felis ut velit varius dictum. Donec volutpat odio vitae arcu. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Suspendisse pretium vestibulum nulla. Donec eleifend. Phasellus velit libero, mollis vel, elementum id, condimentum ac, enim. Vivamus vulputate, velit sit amet viverra vulputate, ligula eros gravida lorem, et laoreet nisi purus eget metus. Nam faucibus est eu nisl. Praesent id libero. Proin sed augue id sem ultrices lacinia. Cras sit amet turpis ac ligula placerat volutpat.
Proin elementum. Nam quis est vel enim semper facilisis. Mauris sit amet dolor. Mauris scelerisque risus ut eros. Aenean molestie, nulla quis sagittis laoreet, elit dolor pharetra felis, a facilisis lectus elit eu ipsum. Sed ut risus. Integer a felis eget nisi tincidunt semper. Nam ac lectus. Praesent et arcu sit amet sem placerat ullamcorper. Aenean faucibus iaculis felis. Donec ut purus vel lacus tempus euismod. Sed eget justo. Cras fermentum tortor a magna.
Pellentesque pretium metus vitae mi. Cras a diam. Nunc magna elit, accumsan et, convallis nec, faucibus molestie, tellus. Donec vestibulum ullamcorper augue. Donec vehicula, urna et consequat pharetra, orci elit commodo mi, a aliquet purus tortor non dolor. Quisque eu ligula. Etiam varius, libero non nonummy condimentum, risus sem posuere orci, sed semper risus mauris eget lacus. Nullam luctus, orci id condimentum bibendum, felis augue pellentesque libero, in aliquam lectus lacus in purus. Phasellus semper libero id felis. Praesent orci leo, ultrices ac, commodo a, ultricies quis, diam. Integer fringilla sagittis odio. Sed vehicula justo at quam. Phasellus arcu pede, pharetra facilisis, aliquam a, accumsan id, magna. Pellentesque vel felis.
Praesent vel turpis vitae nisl sollicitudin scelerisque. Duis ut lectus non sapien laoreet nonummy. Sed eget orci quis justo dapibus consequat. Nulla tempor egestas arcu. Fusce sagittis, dui et hendrerit bibendum, magna odio rutrum nibh, eu ultrices turpis sapien ultricies nulla. Donec pulvinar scelerisque ligula. Phasellus adipiscing, mi ac consequat rhoncus, elit dolor scelerisque metus, at rutrum est quam quis justo. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam erat volutpat. Praesent at ligula. Proin libero sem, adipiscing in, gravida sit amet, placerat et, diam. Integer fermentum ultricies diam. Aliquam sed metus nec tortor tempus consectetuer. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus vitae nunc eu orci laoreet faucibus. Donec eget mauris.
=================================
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteThat is, the rights that I have to freedom of expression are different from the rights that news media have. If I read the constitution correctly, freedom of the press is not lumped together with an individual's right to freedom of expression. ...
The second aspect of the right of a free press involves the rights of journalists as journalists. It seems to me that in their role of journalists, they perform a function that is inherently different from that of an individual citizen. This function, I suggest, has attached to it certain rights that go above and beyond those that an individual acting solely as a citizen has. ...
Yet, the framers of the constitution appear to have realized that a free press warrants a separable set of rights. These guarantee what further seems to be a necessity in a democracy: the free flow of and access to information that enables citizens to carry out their constitutional right to a free and democratic government.
I strongly disagree. Every citizen is a journalist. Your idea will mandate that the legislative and judiciary will define who is and who is not a journalist. State approved journalism is the opposite of a free press.
You will not give journalists more rights, you will reduce the rights of all of us. I do not want for a day when only "licensed" solders/police have guns, only "licensed" journalists have column inches and only "licensed" carpenters have hammers and crazy ideas.
I used to argue when engaged in the gun debate that if the wording of the first amendment was parsed as finely as the second we would have to get government approval to become a journalist.
The road to hell is more likely paved with bad enemies than good intentions.
or said another way..
Against an enemy.— How good bad music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
Nietzsche
Yet, the framers of the constitution appear to have realized that a free press warrants a separable set of rights.
ReplyDeleteBut its just a "damn piece of paper." Nothing constrains the power of the "Great Decider."
Those created our constitution and everyone that went before our chimperor were just "placeholders."
Now, he is god...
...and a chimp for the ages.
Patrick Meighan said...
ReplyDeleteBart sez: "...no court of which I am aware will allow the President to classify illegal activity because illegal activity is per se not among his powers... Indeed, no one is arguing that the President should be able to classify illegal activity. What Mr. Gonzales was discussing is the felony criminal disclosure to the enemy of a perfectly legal NSA intelligence gathering program..."
But then when Bart is challenged to defend the legality of the president's "perfectly legal" NSA intelligence program, Bart sez: "We don't live in North Korea with a presumption of guilt."
That is incorrect. You went off on a tangent assuming criminality of the NSA Program. I challenged you to find me any case law which so holds. You apparently cannot. Case closed yet again.
So then, by Bart's own logic, this administration can, indeed, unilaterally classify anything in the world that it wishes to, and imprison any reporter who discusses said unilterally classified material, since any administrative action is, ipso facto, "perfectly legal" until the moment a court finally adjudicates against the administration.
I never said any such thing. An act is criminal when it is performed, not when it is adjudicated as criminal.
Also, if the information is classified, WHO is able to review it to determine it is illegal and therfore should not have been classified?
ReplyDeleteNo one, just like no one can verify the vote counts. And don't even ask about the lists that are used to keep citizens from voting in the first place, none of your business.
From anonymous at 4:04PM:
ReplyDelete"...and a chimp for the ages."
Okay, that's just being mean.
To Chimpanzees, that is.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteYou really can't connect the dots, can you?
You want to claim the President has unlimited authority in security matters under Article II, including potentially taking the steps under discussion, yet in the next breath state he has no authority to classify 'illegal activity'.
As usual, you start with a false argument which no one is making. Neither the Administration nor I have ever argued that "the President has anything like unlimited authority in security matters under Article II."
I have said that it is well established law that the President has the Article II power to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purpose of intelligence gathering but must seek a warrant to gather criminal evidence.
Therefore, if the President was illegally collecting criminal evidence without a warrant, he would have no basis to classify that illegal activity.
Is your cognative dissonence that pronounced you can't see the contradiction you present?
Willful misrepresentation on your part does not constitute any contradiction at all on my part. It merely destroys your own credibility.
From Bart at 4:06PM:
ReplyDelete"That is incorrect. You went off on a tangent assuming criminality of the NSA Program. I challenged you to find me any case law which so holds. You apparently cannot. Case closed yet again."
Here we go again.
The President himself has admitted, and has yet to be contradicted within or outside the Administration, that this program falls under the aegis of FISA. It has also been admitted the provisions and requirements of the Statute itself have been simply ignored.
Sounds like 'criminal activity' to me.
Cue the refrain "But FISA is unconstitutional/We are at war/Article II empowers the President to do this".
lastnamechosen: I used to argue when engaged in the gun debate that if the wording of the first amendment was parsed as finely as the second we would have to get government approval to become a journalist.
ReplyDeleteBut there are people who have different rights, depending on their functions, no? Police have the right to kill people engaging in threatening acts. An executioner has the right to put someone to death. Soldiers can kill in war. These are rights that come in the preformance of a certain function. If a policeperson were to kill someone off-duty and without cause, they'd be prosecuted like you or me.
Journalists--as journalists--do have rights that accrue to their function of reporting news. They must have a press pass to enter places where you or I can't--a crime scene, for example. I believe that the case law on this protects these "special" rights that journalists have when they are carrying out their function as a journalist.
As far as each of us being a journalist. Perhaps in a metaphorical way, yes. But as a matter of law and practice this simply isn't true. While many people can write, that does not necessarily mean they write as journalists. Indeed, many many others simply do not want to ever write anything.
From Bart at 4:15PM:
ReplyDelete"I have said that it is well established law that the President has the Article II power to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purpose of intelligence gathering but must seek a warrant to gather criminal evidence."
You 'well-established law' ceased to be established with the passage of FISA.
Your claims, carefully couched as they are, amount to "the C-i-C provision of Article II empowers the President to take whatever steps he deems necessary for national security".
You one honest admission is that the Administration isn't making such an argument, likely because they know it won't hold up to serious scrutiny.
Your presumption that this program is being used solely for intelligence gathering purposes, while logical, has no basis of factual support.
You wish to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt? That's your perogative.
For myself, they lost that right and any trust I might have offered some time ago.
The N.Y. Times needs to tell the maladministration, "bring it on!"
ReplyDeleteTell them in no uncertain terms that they'll stick up for something more substantial than Judy Miller's ability to be a maladministration mouthpiece for factually wrong bits of propaganda...
Cheers,
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 4:06PM: "That is incorrect. You went off on a tangent assuming criminality of the NSA Program. I challenged you to find me any case law which so holds. You apparently cannot. Case closed yet again."
Here we go again.
The President himself has admitted, and has yet to be contradicted within or outside the Administration, that this program falls under the aegis of FISA. It has also been admitted the provisions and requirements of the Statute itself have been simply ignored.
Here we go again indeed. Feel free to post Mr. Bush's quote to that effect...
From Bart at 4:15PM: "I have said that it is well established law that the President has the Article II power to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purpose of intelligence gathering but must seek a warrant to gather criminal evidence."
You 'well-established law' ceased to be established with the passage of FISA.
As you well know, the Constitution trumps any and all statutes.
Your claims, carefully couched as they are, amount to "the C-i-C provision of Article II empowers the President to take whatever steps he deems necessary for national security".
Repeating a lie does not make it any truer the second or third time around.
Your presumption that this program is being used solely for intelligence gathering purposes, while logical, has no basis of factual support.
Are your felons who leaked and published a factual description of this program lying like you? If not, they are your factual basis.
You wish to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt? That's your perogative.
They get no more benefit of the doubt than do any other administration. The facts are the facts. The law is the law.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteThe N.Y. Times needs to tell the maladministration, "bring it on!"
I agree. Then Justice can stop delaying and call Risen and the other involved reporters and editors in to testify before a criminal grand jury to identify their sources. If they refuse, I imagine some accommodations can be found in the DC city jail.
Good to see that someone isn't fooled by the media.
ReplyDeletePoor Sucker
From Bart at 4:32PM:
ReplyDelete"Feel free to post Mr. Bush's quote to that effect..."
President Bush:
"...FISA is for long-term monitoring."
"...if there is a need, based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court, in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States."
"...We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
Not terribly definitive, I know. The implication nevertheless is that this program already was covered under FISA, and the White House ajudged its provisions too onerous (poor babies).
From Bart at 4:35PM:
ReplyDelete"They get no more benefit of the doubt than do any other administration. The facts are the facts. The law is the law."
A curious sentiment, given your tendency to reject laws you yourself believe to be unconstitutional.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 4:32PM: "Feel free to post Mr. Bush's quote to that effect...[that the NSA Program falls under FISA]"
President Bush:
"...FISA is for long-term monitoring."
"...if there is a need, based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court, in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States."
"...We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
Not terribly definitive, I know. The implication nevertheless is that this program already was covered under FISA, and the White House ajudged its provisions too onerous (poor babies).
C'mon now. It is well known that the Administration attorneys examined FISA for legality and practicality before they put this NSA program into effect. That is not the same as admitting that the NSA program falls under FISA.
Bart: "You went off on a tangent assuming criminality of the NSA Program. I challenged you to find me any case law which so holds. You apparently cannot. Case closed yet again."
ReplyDeleteBart's logic, made simple:
1. The administration may not classify anything it does which is illegal.
BUT:
2. Regardless of any and all federal statutes that may be on the books (for example, the 1978 FISA law), nothing that the administration does can ever be illegal until the very moment that a court of law specifically rules that it is.
THEREFORE:
3. The administration may classify absolutely anything that it does, in perpetuity, with the exception of any specific actions that a court rules to be illegal when done by the administration.
AND:
4. Any reporter who reveals such classified information may be properly imprisoned until the moment that a court decides that the administration's initial action was illegal, thus rendering the administration's classification designation retroactively improper.
Learn it and live it, folks.
That's our "free press," Bart-style, which'd be funny, if it didn't also happen to be our president's logic as well.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
The troll (and resume-fluffing blowhard) HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDelete... illegal activity is per se not among his [Dubya's] powers
Yep. According to HWSNBN, nothing Dubya does is wrong because he's da King (and dontcha know we got a war on so let's all let Dubya take care of us....)
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteBy the time the press got ahold of this, the Army was already preparing to prosecute the perps under the UCMJ.
Lie. When Seymour Hersh got a hold of this story, the gumnint was sitting on it and doing nothing. In fact, they continued to sit on it for a while after both Hersh and the Red Cross had raised the issue, and as of now, only a few low-level perps have been charged and the chain of command hasn't been investigated at all. And it really can't be, unless there's an independent investigation. The maladministration can't be allowed to investigate itself (which is one reason why HWSNBN's references to "whistle-blower" protections for those that report malfeasance to their superiors is so absurd).
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteIf the NYT thinks that the NSA surveillance program is illegal and improperly classified, then let them argue this defense at their felony criminal trials....
Fine. Let's have a criminal trial. Ain't gonna happen, though, and HWSNBN knows it....
Cheers,
But there are people who have different rights, depending on their functions, no? Police have the right to kill people engaging in threatening acts. An executioner has the right to put someone to death. Soldiers can kill in war. These are rights that come in the preformance of a certain function. If a policeperson were to kill someone off-duty and without cause, they'd be prosecuted like you or me.
ReplyDeleteI have the right to do all of those things including arrest people, at least in my state--except the execution part. Although, since it all come down to a jury, I am sure that a few technical executions have been viewed as self defense before.
Journalists--as journalists--do have rights that accrue to their function of reporting news. They must have a press pass to enter places where you or I can't--a crime scene, for example. I believe that the case law on this protects these "special" rights that journalists have when they are carrying out their function as a journalist.
This is what it really comes down to. Do you favor a government issued press pass? If so, what benefits would be given to the certified press that are not available to the non certified press?
As far as each of us being a journalist. Perhaps in a metaphorical way, yes. But as a matter of law and practice this simply isn't true. While many people can write, that does not necessarily mean they write as journalists. Indeed, many many others simply do not want to ever write anything.
I think it is a mistake to view journalism simply as writing or publishing. Any good investigative journalist will tell you it is 99.9% research and very little typing. Many public facing journalists have a staff of people who do no writing, but research and fact check. With the internet there is an army of unpaid volunteers who fact, grammar and spell check, challenging anything that is published. There is an army of people who research and contribute little bits to both "journalists" and web discussion boards like these. There is also a large group of people who actually witness or participate in something and tell their stories to "journalists" and web discussion boards. These people are journalists in the purest form.
Any definition for journalist you come up with must take into account that journalism is much more than simply writing and publishing.
bart said:
ReplyDeleteHow does the disclosure of the means and methods of the NSA telephone surveillance program...
The NYT story didn't do that.
...which the leakers admit stopped two terrorist ops of which he knew...
Who admitted that? Is it one leaker or several "leakers"?
and which the WP reported resulted in the identification of around 10 targets per year...
Less than 10, actually.
...for which probable cause existed to get FISA warrants not harm national security?...
You say probable cause existed, but I don't trust you after you came here and spread the "Iran/Yellow Stars for Jews" lie. Back it up.
...If the convicted al Qaeda financiers and propagandists...
They haven't been convicted yet.
...who claim that the NSA tapped their phones are correct, we have more proof positive of the efficacy of this program...
So, if you're that interested in proving that the program is effective, you're all in favor of finding out more about this program, right? So, join the majority (and put your money where your mouth is)- call for hearings into all of the warrantless surveillance programs of American citizens. Only then will you be proven right that this program is effective and good and holy and righteous and patriotic and blah blah blah.
Assuming, of course, that these people are indeed members of al Qaeda (something which has NOT been established), and assuming that those same al Qaeda suspects end up getting away with engaging in terrorist activities because the NSA evidence got thrown out of court, that's the fault of the law enforcement agencies (i.e. divisions of the Executive Branch) for not getting a warrant in the first place. You remind me of the cop that laments the drug dealer "getting off" after the evidence that was planted was thrown out.
...How does informing the enemy which telephone companies are safe to use because they did not provide call data to the NSA not harm national security?...
Here I actually think this will help national security. It's a false assertion that certain telephone companies are "safe" from NSA wiretapping. The NSA can wiretap whoever the hell they want, even American citizens, provided they get a warrant. If members of al Qaeda want to get a little looser with their communications just because bart says Qwest is "safe", more power to 'em. They would pay dearly for mistakenly believing bart.
...How does informing the enemy of the location of the detention centers holding their most valuable leaders not harm national security?...
The WaPo story didn't do that.
...How does informing the enemy of the exact interrogation techniques the US will use against their captured terrorists so that they can train their terrorists in resistance techniques not harm national security?...
There are many different routes to go here, but I'm going with the simplest (and possibly most controversial) assertion: telling our enemies how we plan to torture them doesn't harm our national security, because torture doesn't help our national security. I'm happy to debate it, if only to understand from bart's point of view how torturing prisoners helps national security.
...How does providing the enemy with endless propaganda lies such as reports of "torture gulags" in Europe not harm national security?...
Well, it's interesting, bart, that you claim that disclosing the location of detention centers harms national security, but then a few sentences later you claim it's a propaganda lie that...harms national security.
Which is it? Is reporting about CIA prisons in Eastern Europe harming national security because the locations are disclosed, or is it harming national security because the whole existence of those prisons is a lie? Do you understand how those two statements are mutually exclusive, if you're being honest and accurate?
(still waiting for you to admit that President Bush lied, and now wondering why you haven't apologized for that made-up story on Iran)
YP: You 'well-established law' ceased to be established with the passage of FISA.
ReplyDeleteBart: As you well know, the Constitution trumps any and all statutes.
Whoa, whoa! I thought we were going by case law and not giving the administration the benefit of the doubt. Suddenly they get the power to decide which statute is or is not constitutional? What is this, North Korea?
HWSNBN:
ReplyDelete[yankeependragon]: You should also re-examine your claim the President has no power to classify illegal activity. You have, after all, been claiming Article II allows him to unilaterally de-classify material; its no stretch of the imagination or simple common sense he can classify and bury whatever he wants.
Actually, this claim is completely imaginary.
Show me any case law, statute or constitutional provision allowing the President to classify illegal activities.
Hey, it's right there in the Constitution right before the paragraph that says that the preznit has the authority to wiretap anyone he wants to without a warrant, or legislative or judicial intererence or oversight.
Cheers,
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteI have a challenge... can anyone give me two examples of investigative media reporting that boost Bush rather than tear him down? Needless to say, Fox is off limits.
Does Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" count? Or was that too neutral?
I would say that Judith Miller's work was extremely beneficial to President Bush, but as we now know, her stuff wasn't really investigative journalism, it was really just government plants.
I'm a little unclear on the premise of your challenge. Are you looking for any "investigative reporting" that was beneficial to President Bush? Or are you looking for any investigative reporting that was beneficial to President Bush, but was/is also true?
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteI have a challenge... can anyone give me two examples of investigative media reporting that boost Bush rather than tear him down?
Well ... I have a challenge for you, shooter: Can you find a single thing that merits a moment of "investigation:" that Dubya has done that would actually "boost" him? I mean, anything, no matter how small, that he's actually done right. If it's too hard a task, I'll open it up to anything he's done his entire life.
Hop to it, my man. Fame and fortune await you for this incredible scoop ... perhaps even a Poolitzer, eh?
Cheers,
Actually, Clarence Page had a column on this subject on May 10th, including a “news item” that said:
ReplyDeleteSeveral Bush administration officials, including Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, have spoken of prosecuting The Washington Post over the secret American war prisons and The New York Times for its Pulitzer-winning scoop on the National Security Agency's secret surveillance of Americans.
So Gonzales (and others) has at least mentioned it before. I’m not quite sure what to make of the Times’ and Post’ silence yet – it is, after all Dana Priest and James Risen who were specifically mentioned as targets for prosecution, so I doubt that they’ll just shrug their shoulders as their reporters are marched off to prison with Bill Bennett cheering on the sidelines. I think this story has yet to play out.
Perhaps this has something to do with Mary McCarthy who, although she was fired was perhaps not the source for that (prison) story – we don’t know what she did wrong – it’s a secret. Was she simply fired for an “unauthorized contact” with Dana Priest simply to send a message to others in the CIA? Intimidation of the CIA and the press is the goal here. What we don’t know is just how far they’ll actually take it.
Clarence Page also happens to mention Thomas Jefferson in this column – who, apparently, had a little first hand experience with intimidation of the press.
Indeed, less than a decade after the ratification of the 1st Amendment, the party that controlled both houses of Congress at the time, the Federalists led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, tried to repeal it with the Sedition Act of 1798. That law made it a crime for any person to criticize the president, Congress or the government of the U.S.
Passed in the name of national security, the Sedition Act proved to be nothing more than an excuse to arrest journalists and others who were sympathetic to the rival Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In spite of looming war fears, the backlash against the Sedition Act helped Republicans to elect Jefferson president in 1800, and he pardoned those convicted under the Sedition Act.
Is history about to repeat itself?
bart said:
ReplyDeleteAs you well know, the Constitution trumps any and all statutes.
(sigh) But that's only true if a statute and powers granted in the Constitution are in conflict, i.e. if the statute is un-Constitutional. Bart, are you claiming that the FISA law is un-Constitutional?
HWSNBN
ReplyDelete[Arne]: The N.Y. Times needs to tell the maladministration, "bring it on!"
I agree. Then Justice can stop delaying and call Risen and the other involved reporters and editors in to testify before a criminal grand jury to identify their sources. If they refuse, I imagine some accommodations can be found in the DC city jail.
The Times can move to quash any such subpoena, and Risen and company (charged with a crime) can plead the Fifth. Good luck to ya, Bart. "Mr. DePalma, Criminal Procesutor".... Heh. Now that's funny....
Cheers,
According to our trolls those “secret prisons” do not exist.
ReplyDeleteNow if they don’t exist, how could information about them be “classified?”
Huh?
They are so busy spinning that they’re becoming confused by their own talking points.
I guess what they’re advocating is prosecuting a reporter for filing a “false” story. Actually, it’s the administration who is guilty of planting lots of “false” stories in the press to build support for the war – but, of course, its not a “crime” when they do it.
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteYou people slay me.
That would be the easy way, but then we'd be just like you. However, under a period of martial law, we could decimate a whole slew of you for looting before order was restored.
I think I just found another reason to that leading bloggers (and perhaps commenters, too!)might wish to stay hidden behind pseudonyms... at least then the Bush NSA won't be able to so easily locate their phone records!
ReplyDeleteSorry, Glenn... too late for you, I'm afraid. Then again, if you do find the Bush Brownshirts on your tail, you can always open another blog anymously and continue to fight the good fight!
Our troll:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that no court of which I am aware will allow the President to classify illegal activity because illegal activity is per se not among his powers.
It will never make it to the courts – it will just be kept secret.
In other words, in addition to relying on the state secrets doctrine to an unprecedented degree, the administration is now well on its way to transforming it from a narrow evidentiary privilege into something that looks like a doctrine of broad government immunity….
Despite the burgeoning use of this privilege and the way it's been used to gut entire cases, the most disturbing aspect of the Bush administration's expansion of the state secrets privilege may well be this: More and more, it is invoked not in response to run-of-the-mill government negligence cases but in response to allegations of criminal conduct on the part of the government. These are not slip-and-fall cases. They are challenges to the administration's broad new theories of unchecked executive power. By using the state secrets privilege to shut down whole lawsuits that would examine government actions before the cases even get under way, the administration avoids having to give a legal account of its behavior. And if this tactic persists—if the administration continues to broadly assert this privilege and courts continue to accept it—the administration will have succeeded in creating an insurmountable immunity that can be invoked against pretty much any legal claim that the "war on terror" violates the law. The standard and winning response to any plaintiff who asserted such charges would be, quite simply, that it's a secret.
The Bush administration has fought at every turn to limit scrutiny of its conduct since Sept. 11. And, unless courts start to reject its assertion, the administration may have found in the state secrets privilege the ultimate tool for making its actions invisible.
If it’s a crime, then it’s a secret.
And so it goes.
lastnamechosen: If so, what benefits would be given to the certified press that are not available to the non certified press?
ReplyDeleteAlthough not a legal right, you might get to go backstage to see X rock/classical/jazz/R&B star!?
BUt seriously, I think the point is that the state has the obligation to give people certain rights that others do not-and should not--have. The cases of the police and soldiers still apply, I think. In most states, you must be deputized to arrest anyone. Unless in self-defense or to protect someone else, in emergency situations you cannot shoot/kill anyone.
You or I also can't operate on people without a license, except perhaps in emergencies and only to save someone's life. I can't do it regularly nor receive money for it.
In the same way, I think journalists have certain rights, again only when they are acting as journalists. And, again, my point is that as members of the press they should be accorded a consideration for having and disseminating secret information, if and when it is in the public interest. Their right to do so is protected by the constitution--at least that's how I read the First Amendment.
To actually imprison journalists would (theoretically) require a trial. Bush won't go there. Either he will just threaten, or he will start hauling journalists off to Gitmo. We will know we're in a police state if the latter starts happening.
ReplyDeleteNo. We *won't* know. That's the problem. We know about the threats now, but when the actual disappearances start, who will be left to report them? Only the sheep in wolves' clothing that make up an increasing fraction of the commercial media. The genuine wolves - or watchdogs, if you prefer - will be in Gitmo, or in shallow graves.
Do you really think that the reporter that discovers the story of the first reporter being secretly imprisoned or murdered wouldn't consider the possibility of becoming the *second* reporter secretly imprisoned or murdered, before deciding whether or not to report it? Count on it - Bush will. For all we know, it may have happened already.
All democracy is, at bottom, founded on the premise that the people can distinguish truth from lies if presented with both. (Or at least, that the people collectively are at least as good at it as any small number of them individually.) It therefore isn't necessary to suppress lies, while it's very dangerous to suppress truths, which leads to the principle of suppressing nothing.
One more thing - we need a constitutional amendment, *right now*, that specifies that when a criminal investigation requires facts that allegedly need to be kept secret for national security, the investigation must continue with the sensitive information kept secret - even if that means revealing only the verdict of the investigation, that's better than blocking it altogether.
ReplyDeleteAnd means need to be provided for a party unconnected to the target of the investigation (which, in some cases, may mean outside the executive branch entirely) to evaluate the credentials of the investigators and issue clearances.
Otherwise, who guards the guardians?
"Show me any case law, statute or constitutional provision allowing the President to classify illegal activities.
ReplyDeleteThe law universally recognizes that the President may classify and declassify any legal executive activity he pleases."
This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen from you yet, bart. Now I know you'll continue to act "professional" and treat everything the same way you have been, but keep one thing in mind: We are all laughing at you. I laughed so hard at your posts in this thread that I cried.
I'm glad some of you have the time and patience to take bart's posts line-by-line and show the bullshit because I sure as hell don't.
From Bart at 5:05PM:
ReplyDelete"C'mon now. It is well known that the Administration attorneys examined FISA for legality and practicality before they put this NSA program into effect."
Your point is...what?
In fact, how solid is your contention that FISA covers *only* criminal cases?
“But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: [unclear] you can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment; and the – the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the President can be wrong.”
ReplyDelete-- H.R. Haldeman to President Nixon, Monday, 14 June 1971, 3:09 p.m. meeting.
yankeependragon:
ReplyDelete[To the troll HWSNBN]: In fact, how solid is your contention that FISA covers *only* criminal cases?
Not at all. In fact, he's full'o'sh*te on that one. He made it up, because that manufactured "fact" allows him to make one of his other specious arguments. But as they say, "Garbage in, garbage out...." You start with a false premise and your entire syllogism isn't worth anything.
Cheers,
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable stuff Glenn.
ReplyDeleteJournalists have by and large done a horrendous job covering this, and it is too bad. The issues are clear cut, and one on which a great majority of Americans could easily agree, were they properly informed. The way for Americans to be informed is through the Media (the same reason, ironically, the administratoin wants to chill such related information).
Those who read your blog should focus on how to communicate your excellently made points, to a MAJORITY OF AMERICA, so that on this issue, that goes to the heart of our democracy, America, the land of the free and home of the brave (as I like to say) is informed. And to the media, so that it stops kowtowing to the far right like a bunch of sheep, and starts doing its job.
Jeez, why all the whining about civil liberties? Don't you commies know you don't have any civil liberties when you're dead?
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteOne minor nit:
the President believes that he has the power to break the law
There is no "power" to "break the law". You may be given immunity from prosecution or from otherwise being held accountable (for one of various reasons), the law may specifically exempt you from its provisions, the law may not be a valid law, or you may be able to weasel out of law-breaking because your buddies are in the DA's office.
But there's no "power" to do so; this phrase is a logical absurdity. Any system of law or gummint that pretends to recognise such a "power" is internally inconsistent and flawed at its foundation (somewhat akin to a formal system in math quickly falling apart into "anything goes" once you let in a single false statement: prove 2+2=5 and you can then formally prove any false statement you want).
In fact, Glenn, I think you were trying to get at this, but it needs to be emphasized: Once you allow this "power" (nee "law-breaking") once, there is no way that it can be logically curtailed.
Cheers,
Ultimately Bush and his allies only like the Constitution when it is to their advantage and for PR purposes. Hence the feel no compunction to use and abuse. They don't care about how this changes things in the future because they either they live in an alternate universe, the past, or they just don't give a damn.
ReplyDeleteWhile they don't truly understand how the Constitution works, they understand how dangerous the press could be so the do what the can to neuter it.
Today's incarnation of the GOP respects power and money, and sometimes the Constitution and other truths/reality are inconvenient impediments. They will do what they have to, say what they have to, and interpret as the have to, in order to obtain and keep power. You can tell the have borderline disdain/contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution or they wouldn't be so free with the hypocritical double standards.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteOur Government would be engaging in all of this conduct, and worse. But we would not know about any of it. We would just be going merrily along our way, completely ignorant of the fact that the Bush administration has undertaken the most unimaginably radical and disturbing conduct in the name of the United States....
... and we would think that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were sterling successes and that the "mission was accomplished" and that the grateful Iraqi citizens hauled down that statue of Saddam (draping a U.S. flag over the head while doing so) in a spontaneous display of 'Merkuh-loving, and we'd think that all of al Qaeda was captured and convicted many times over, and that Brownie had indeed done a "heck of a job" and that the tax revenues were overflowing the coffers....
Hey. Waiddaminnit. We already do know these things because that's what the MSM boobleheads have been spouting pretty much without any serious question..... In fact, sad to say, the abuses and the failures have seeped out in spite of the efforts of the MSM to "keep it bottled", for the most part. Hersh and Palast and the other few brave and intrepitd souls (and the bloggers that have raised some of the issues and forced them into the MSM) are dismissed by the MSM (and called commies and worse by such as Faux News).
We won't have a free country back until we get back a free press.
... We would all be Hugh Hewitt and John Hinderaker -- incapable of doing anything other than obediently praising the Commander-in-Chief and reciting the view of the world which the administration wants us to have because we would not know any better.
You left out the troll HWSNBN.
But the MSM has been just as complicit way too many times. Take back our media.
Cheers,
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteWhy have we suddenly reached a point where our Government is too weak to defend our country without trying to stifle a free press by threatening journalists with imprisonment?
"Oh, I know! Call on me. Call on meeee!!!" That one's easy, Glenn: Because this maladministration is just so frikkin' eeeevvviiilll, criminal, and incompetent. Desperate times need desperate measures. Even with the acquiescence (or even tacit approval) of the MSM, it's becoming harder and harder to completely cover up all the crimes and malfeasance.
Cheers,
The Republican-leaning editorial page of the Chicago Tribune weighs in against Gonzales statements. An excerpt:
ReplyDeleteIn strict legal terms, Gonzales is also on shaky ground. Since its enactment in 1917, the Espionage Act has never been used to punish journalists for publishing classified secrets, despite the abundance of such stories. Nor is it at all certain that the law, if applied that way, would be upheld by the courts.
This story was clearly of value to the American public, since it revealed a program that may have violated federal law. Contrary to what is often claimed, it doesn't appear to have done any harm to national security--say, by alerting Al Qaeda confederates that they shouldn't talk on the telephone. Existing law, after all, allows such eavesdropping with court approval.
The administration would prefer to keep the effort secret. But the constitutional guarantee of press freedom puts tight limits on the government's power to punish the press for what it reports. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a premier 1st Amendment scholar, says it's inconceivable that the courts would allow a prosecution unless the information published is of little public value and poses a "clear and present danger" to national security--such as revealing troop movements in wartime.
In this case, neither of those conditions has been met. Indeed, Congress has responded to the New York Times report with long and healthy debate about whether the NSA program is constitutional--and whether the courts should provide oversight of it. Instead of going after journalists, the administration should devote its energies to putting its own house in order.
So, who's next?
Imprisoning Journalists?
ReplyDeleteCertainly hope so.
Got my popcorn all ready for the frog marches in Manhattan.
Says the "Dog"
"The Dog" hungers for his beloved fascism:
ReplyDeleteImprisoning Journalists?
Certainly hope so.
Got my popcorn all ready for the frog marches in Manhattan.
Says the "Dog"
The Soviets knew what they were doing, too, when they controlled the press, and imprisoned any dissident voices under a "enemy of the state" rubric.
The greatest threat to the Rethuglican dictatorship is an informed populance. Can't have that now. Break out the ol' brown shirt....
Cheers,
A letter to the Washington Post, humbly submitted my me.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor --
Over the weekend, I noticed a small news story about AG Gonzlez commenting that the administration would possibly jail reporters who write stories that could harm national security. My concern is this -- I have seen nothing in the press regarding this possiblity other than the very brief mention of it in a news program on TV. A free nation depends upon it's press to it's people informed so they may participate in public discussion and choose leaders wisely. When the government of the people is engaged in "secret" and illegal activities, a free nation depends upon a free press to inform us of our governments actions. Why is our press silent on this issue? The Washinton Post has a long and wonderful history of being a leader of the free press -- keeping Americans informed and educated about the dark under-belly of any institution who seeks to abuse the trust of the people while purporting to do the work of the people. (Watergate comes to mind, immediately)
I am outraged that there is no more attention given to the possilbility that this administration would jail a member of the press for reporting the illegal activities of the government. Is this President completely without moral restraint? Has our press become a lapdog, living off the scraps fed to them by an ethically bankrupt government?
Reclaim your courage, your outrage, your patriotism and report the truth -- relentlessly and fearlessly. We, the people, will respect you more for it.
cynic librarian,
ReplyDeleteSorry for my belated reply. Even if I accept your premise that the government can regulate journalists, you have no specific proposal or ideas about how this should be done.
I am not sure if you see a problem with journalism that needs to be corrected or a problem with the classification of information by the executive. If it is the latter then I am not sure if regulating journalists is the proper course of action.
Did you disagree with the judicial decision that Judy Miller should testify in the Plame case?
The "Dog" hungers for *justice* Arne boy. The left is so infatuated with everything *different* from their ideas being fascist that they are always willing to create totalitarian stalinesque regimes of violence to oppose it.
ReplyDeleteSays the "Dog"
"The Dog":
ReplyDeleteThe "Dog" hungers for *justice* Arne boy....
Careful what you ask for ... you might just get it. Just a freindly word of advice.
... The left is so infatuated with everything *different* from their ideas being fascist that they are always willing to create totalitarian stalinesque regimes of violence to oppose it.
That "Big scary Commies! Commies under my bed!" stuff is so '50s ... and so prepublescent, dontcha think?
But I'd note that it's Rethuglicans and their sycophantic minions that are all in favour of "disappearances", "rendition", torture, "state secrets", a muzzled press, and all that other crap nowadays ... hmmm, come to think of it, they've been that way for nearly half a century -- nevermind.
I'd note that it's pretty much par for the course for you folks to even go so far as to tell us what we're thinking.....
Got your armband and jackboots yet?
Cheers,
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI hope you read get to read this post.
first off, fantastic job. I quoted directly from, and linked to this piece, here including a look at the media'a critical role in allowing this to evolve to this pointk and their poor job in handling it now...
I am also suggesting that your piece be read by every American, and am linking it wherever I can. I do think every America needs to read it. I also continually call it "brilliant," "excellent," and "fantastic,"
obviously, I might have some quibbles,but those would be largely irrelevant to the fact that you nailed the issue as well as anyboyd, anywhere.
but the one thing that I would strongly suggest, and I agree with arne L here, the very first few lines give this piece a different flair than what it really is, and which otherwise could affect it applicability to what otherwise really should be to site, or in any publication or think tank, regardless of political persuasion. In other words, the first paragraph comes off like an attack on Bush,even if you don't believe this to be the case, as many people have become convinced otherwise (mainly through poor reporting). I also think the administration is convinced, as well as many of its followers, even when they are introduced.
but the principles that you expound, vital and basic to any free democracy, anywhere, and more so to America, than almost anything I have read in a long, long time, transcend all that. that should then get in the way of Most Americans reading your piece, understanding it, and realizing that it comes from a non partisan perspective.
thanks, if you did happen to catch a moment, for taking the time to consider this
yankeependragon...
ReplyDelete"'2001 - Stopped attack using aircraft from Asia.'
Oh? This is a new one for me. Details and citations, please."
Just after the 1993 WTC bombing [Ramzi Yousef found guilty in 1997], during the mid 1990's a group put together by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was discovered in the Philippines by Filipino authorities after one of their homemade explosives went off accidently in their apartment.
It was later learned that their plan was to blow up 12 [Twelve] US jumbo jets while in flight over the Pacific.
CBS News:
"Intelligence sources say Mohammed directed the first World Trade Center bombing, as well as a 1995 plot to down a dozen American airliners in the Pacific and crash a plane into the CIA headquarters. His operative in those plots was his nephew: Ramzi Yousef. But those attacks failed."
Bart was probably referring to this, yet another jumbo jet terror plot:
The Sydney Morning Herald:
"Under the plan, extremists recruited and trained by JI [Jemaah Islamiah], the regional terrorist network, would hijack a series of aircraft in east Asia which would be blown up or flown into unspecified targets after the suicide attacks in New York and Washington in 2001."
One of the problems with journalists leaking details of classified surveillance programs might be that the potential for terrorists to be alerted and then change their tactics is real, unlike the cartoon stuff the Gump triplets [anonymous, anonymous and anonymous] keep blathering on and on about.
Should journalists go to jail?
I would say that the MSM in general is not in a position to evaluate the various risks to our national security, nor should they be, so it therefore seems pretty foolish for major media outlets to go ahead and publish questionable stories just to keep liberals giggling for another week or two.
But then again, what do I know...