Bill could authorize prosecution for mentioning administration wiretapping
 

So...

Where do we go from here?
To paraphrase Night Phoenix, A government can and will do what it must to protect its interests, both overt and covert, but this seems to run counter to 1st amendment rights, and sets off a lot of warning lights for me.

Doesn't this seem like some indication that we should take issue with more than the fact that Bush was caught doing wiretapping? This kind of protection of a vested interest victimizes people who are incidental to the actual wiretapping itself.

This says that you can be punished for releasing compromising details about investigations etc. That sounds very reasonable, and therefore, likely to pass. That it's built upon existing rules makes it even more 'common sense'.

Is it going to be used to discourage those who write general articles or voice concerns about the practice without divulging anything of a compromising nature? That's something we can't know yet, but sounds like a great way to go about silencing critics of surveilance programs.

I tried to find that actual bill so I could read it and nearly died of a tedium induced brain anyeurism. It's like they don't want you to read this shit. Can anyone find a copy of it?

http://www.plogress.com/ussoh1/

My guess is it's one of the undescribed bills there, whose text "will not be released until the bill is released from the Government Printing Office" or something. Might have something to do with the general unavailablity of the thing. I agree that it's impossible to track down.That could do it too.

This is one of many things I don't like about Congress. What they do should be completely transparent to us. They don't have the excuse of security to cover up things.

Why not? The government has lots of nifty little projects, among other things, that need secrecy for the sake of national security. These projects need funding, which Congress has to authorize. In these cases, Congress debates the measure in closed session, and the funding required is buried somewhere in the budget.

It kind of defeats the purpose of something being a state secret if we can read anything and everything we might want to know about it in the Congressional Record.

Eh, I just don't like Congress. You know this. =/

While I believe that the government should be responsible to the people and not.... nevermind. I couldn't type the rest of that with a straight face. The government is not trying to stop you from saying or printing anything. Therfore it doesn't violate the freedom of speech or press. "Prior restraint" is the key word when looking at any penalty on speech/press.

There's been plenty of laws that have imposed prison terms and fines for anti-government press/speech. Alien and Sedition Act, Espionage Act, Sedition Act(s). All in the name of "National Security". This is nothing new. Some were repealed in some cases, and some are still on the books to this day. So it doesn't matter if this one passes. I believe the Espionage Act is still in effect.

It really isn't Bush you should be worried about. Seriously, how many Americans has he had locked up? Maybe that American Taliban guy, but that's it.

Watts, have you totally missed everything that's happened at Guantanemo Bay for the last 4 years?

How does that have anything to do with wire tapping? I believe watts was referring to locking up Americans, not terrorists.

Gumby, if you're really so naive as to believe that only terrorists were held at Guantanemo, I strongly suggest you do some research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111301061.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1629283
http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article...._article=10503
http://www.atsnn.com/story/130438.html

There are many more examples. Among those detained without trial were Americans and British and Canadian citizens.

You’re kidding me right? One of those links is to some whack job website and two from less than respected news organizations.

The military released those that they found to be innocent with the exception of the 5 people that can't be sent home for fear they will be killed.

All were detained because the military thought they were terrorists and a possible threat and per the Geneva Convention were given a hearing before a military tribunal. All of the people who are still detained in Guantanemo are there for a reason and are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Again, what does this have to do with wiretapping?

Where does one go to find a list of which news organizations are well respected as opposed to those that are not? With names like Washington Post and Abc News, they sound all, legit and stuff. I'd love (relatively) non-partisan resource to determine that kind of thing. Thanks.

Just because they are well known names in the media does not mean they are not bias news outlets. Shit, most news these days is just that. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a journalist that isn't completely bias either way.

You'd be hard pressed to find any source that isn't biased in some way.

So yeah, any link you throw at me will henceforth be rejected!

DURRRRR

BBC News or any piece of British Journalism is your best bet.

The New York Times, however, is the most bias respected new source on the planet.

How many Americans, or even people are locked up in Guantanemo are there because they said something negative about Bush? Or the American government's practices at large in the press/public? If I had to bet; absolutely none. Guantanemo Bay is a much different issue then this.

This is more or less hype that the government is going to lock up political dissents. And you know what? They probably will. We have a history of doing just that. Every country does, democratic or otherwise in times of war.

When Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's proposed a bill that granted the top 5 offices in his country immunity from prosecution (which included himself), most of the European public considered this a threat to Democracy, as those high ranking officials could not be held responsible for any crime they might have commited before they took office or more importantly, while they held it.

Now while things are a little different in the case discussed here, I cannot help to see a similar pattern. With this bill the goverment does not gain immunity from unauthorised wiretapping, but anyone implying such an incident is criminalised.

Quite disturbing, that Italian bill got passed by the way...

Like in the case of President Pinochet (from Chile), this "executive" immunity could be stripped from the top five officials at a later date. If they're found to be doing something really horrible. Might take awhile though.

Not really in this case, the person who exposed the wire tapping could be put under prosecution under stipulations set by the Espionage Act anyway. Really, this isn't as big an issue as most people (particularly democrats/liberals) are trying to make it.

Thanks, I know BBC is generally accepted as a source. But I was hoping that someone would have a list of American sources that were acceptable in PP. Since New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, Fox, have all been discounted. Or is it just that *no* local news source is good enough for such issues?

My issue is that these sources are thrown out, therefore their claims needn't be looked into, because it was a 'bad' source.

@Bigblah, of course there is bias, and this is not an attempt to bait anyone into such an argument. I was hoping on the off chance that there would be a group which lists credible sources for both (all?) sides of the US political spectrum. Or if it really is as it appears, and that any source which doesn't agree with one's view is 'not respected' as a news agency.

Really, American journalism is pure shit. We care more about Tom Cruise than what's going on in the rest of the world.

What you say??!

Sounds to me like someone doesn't entirely know what they're talking about...

My opinion can be expressed rather shortly and directly - the government should stay the bloody hell away from deciding what can and can't be discussed. If something's being done to violate people's rights it must stop immediately. I can't even believe anyone could be lenient at all about this, especially so long as we have a president who believes he is above all law, logic, and common sense.

Ahh you have such a ideal sense of American history.

Let me help you fill in the gaps....

President Wilson - Espionage Act - Used primarily for silencing anti-war, anti-draft people. Primarily socialists. Ever wonder why America doesn't have a socialist/social-democrat party?

President Roosevelt - Smith Act - Used primarily to apply Espionage Act war provisions in peace time. Also locked up all the Japanese-Americans during the war in internment camps.

President Truman - Didn't need laws - Started the communist paranoia. Which ended up with blacklists, showtrials, and the execution of a jewish couple. Wasn't all that bad. He got rid of all those pinkos.

There you go. Three presidents who were above the law. Oh... they're all democrats too. Enjoy.

And you have such a... talent for telling half the story.

Nixon: Watergate - Had some of his cronies burglarize the Watergate Hotel, the Democratic headquarters, and then attempted to cover it up and silence the press. Read "All the President's Men" for the full story. Became the first president in history to be impeached.

Reagan: "Irangate" - Sold arms to Iran illegally in exchange for the release of hostages by Iranian militant groups, then used the profits to supply the Contras. A little more about this: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/e.../m0020627.html

Off the top of my head, two Republican presidents that believed that the law didn't apply to them.

Point is, that there will ALWAYS be bad apples, and somehow they will get elected, and they will attempt to expand their power using both legal and illegal means. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican who is pulling bullshit, the fact is that they're PULLING BULLSHIT.

Poor Andrew Johnson. Not only did Nixon manage to steal his place in history as the first president to be impeached, he did it without being impeached, to boot.

I blame the American school system for that part of history.

Thanks for reinforcing my points at least.

We're talking about domestic repression. But I'll bite. Nixon would be hailed as a great liberal today. Was for gun control, imposed price controls, started affirmative action. Probably could go on.

Second, when hasn't there been a little elections controversy? People still aren't sure about 2000. Some say 2004 wasn't fair....

Last, Nixon wasn't the only president to be impeached, but he probably would've been the first to be removed from office.... that is if he hadn't resigned. He was also primarily brought down by Republicans like Barry Goldwater.


I'll yield on this one, but again overall topic is domestic repression.

Also, you can't talk about Iran-Contra without talking about some very prominant Republicans AND Democrats to this day.

At this point aren't we beyond just a few bad apples? And scapegoating Bush?

Watts, why this fascination with splitting this debate into "Democrats Vs. Republicans" when the issue at hand is about "The Government Vs. The People"? When I'm locked up for suggesting that maybe it'd be nice to call my aunt overseas without the government listening in, it's really not going to matter much to me wiether the people who locked me up were lefties or righties.

Concerning the point at hand, I can understand the administration's desire to accomplish something in this "War on Terror" without being hindered by an overzealous liberal media and a bitchy populace. (Don't argue the overzealous media/bitchy populace point. I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect.) However, I would like to see the government try to accomplish this utilizing... slightly more legal means. Methods that don't curtail my rights. You can say, if you like, that just because they're going to pass this law, it doesn't mean they're actually going to lock me up, but you know what? Fuck that. If they're not nessicarilly going to use it, than they don't need to pass it; no good can come from having it on the books - it's an idealistic view, sure, but you know what? Everyone's idealistic. If you're not working towards some ideal, than maybe you should take a step back and reconsider your life.

Also, the original article claimed that the bill might be passed "as early as next week." This was written last week. Any more news on this?

Yet there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. You're so interested into making it into a "Democrats vs. Republicans" debate that I pointed out several Republicans who had thought themselves above the law.

The 2000 election, if I recall correctly, didn't involve burglary. It involved a key figure who had a particular bias against Gore, but not burglary.

Your point? I'm actually serious about this, I have no clue what you meant by that. ^^"

Oh, and I totally forgot about Johnson, Styphon. Damn you and your history crown. ;_;

My point has always been that these types of laws have historically been used and abused by Presidents; whether Democrat or Republican. The reason I cited purely Democrat President examples was when somebody said to the extent that; "This law will probably only be passed because President Bush believes he's above the law". Clearly somebody needed some prespective. Which I tried to provide. Just blaming Bush is a cop-out, and ignores a lot of (apparently) untold history.

Heh. Those are dying breeds. Honestly I cannot tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Except when it comes down to morality issues that have no effect on my life. That are only brought up during election years.

Never said it did. However it involved much more then that; voter disenfranchisement in Florida, Diebold, and ultimately a Supreme Court decision which decided the election. Frankly, a little burglary doesn't seem that bad to me nowadays.

Actually I've been saying just that. So watch what you say. :)

Historically, power surrendered to the government has never been not utilized.

Exactly. They want people to blindly turn power over to them. This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

So... the fact that people have done something wrong in the past completely excuses Bush doing something wrong today?

By that logic, we shouldn't prosecute bank robbers because Bonnie and Clyde did the same thing in the 30's.

Oh, you. Accomodating that sort of logic would impede their Let's Play Military Strategist! matches in foreign affairs threads.

No, all I said was that placing all blame on proposed laws like these solely on Bush is illogical. Did I ever say he shouldn't be held responsible if he were ever to abuse it? Nope.

What?

Communist Party USA - The CPUSA, once the slavish propaganda tool and spy network for the Soviet Central Committee, has experiences a forced transformation in recent years. Highly classified Soviet Politburo Gus Hall-Jarvis Tyner (CPUSA) - 1972records, made public after the fall of Soviet communism, revealed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union illegally funneled millions of dollars to the CPUSA to finance its activities from the 1920s to the 1980s. The flow of Soviet dollars to the CPUSA came to an abrupt halt when the communists were ousted from power there in 1991, ultimately causing a retooling of CPUSA activities. Founded in 1924, the CPUSA reached its peak vote total in 1932 with nominee William Z. Foster (102,000 votes - 4th place). The last national CPUSA ticket -- featuring the team of Gus Hall and Angela Davis -- was fielded back in 1984 (36,000 votes - 8th place). While the party has not directly fielded any of its own candidates for over a decade, the CPUSA has backed some candidates in various local elections (often in industrial communities) and engaged in grassroots political and labor union organizing. In the 1998 elections, longtime CPUSA leader Hall actually urged party members to vote for all of the Democratic candidates for Congress -- arguing that voting for any progressive third party candidates would undermine the efforts to oust the "reactionary" Republicans from control of Congress. As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, "massive" public works programs, the outlawing of "scabs and union busting," abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to "beat the power of the capitalist class ... [and promote] anti-imperialist freedom struggles around the world." The CPUSA's underlying communist ideology hasn't changed much over the years, but the party's tactics have undergone a major shift (somewhat reminiscent of those used by the CPUSA in the late 1930s). After the death of hardline communist leader Hall in 2000, Gorbachev-style "reform communist" activist Sam Webb assumed leadership of the CPUSA. The CPUSA also maintains online sites for the People's Weekly World party newspaper, Political Affairs monthly party magazine, and the CPUSA's Young Communists League youth organization.

Socialist Party USA - The SPUSA are true democratic socialists -- advocating left-wing electoral change versus militant revolutionary change. Many of the SP members could easily be members Norman Thomas for Presidentof the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party. Unlike most of the other political parties on this page with "Socialist" in their names, the SP has always been staunchly anti-communist. Founded by labor union leader, ex-Democratic elected official and pacifist Eugene V. Debs in 1900, the SP was once a mighty national third party. Debs himself was the SP nominee for president five times between 1900 and 1920. Debs received over 900,000 votes (6%) in 1912 -- the SP's best showing ever. Former minister and journalist Norman Thomas was the SP Presidential nominee 6 times between 1928 and 1948 -- his best showing being 883,000 votes (2.2%) in 1932. The SP also elected congressmen, mayors and other officials throughout the 20th Century (largely during the 1910s through 1950s). The withered and splintered so much that, by the last 1972, it barely existed. The Democratic Socialists of American and the Social Democrats USA --both linked below -- are the other splinter groups from the original Debs/Thomas SP. Activist from the old SP reconstituted the party in 1976 and began to again field SP national tickets for the first time in over two decades. Peace activist and former SP-USA National Chairman David McReynolds was the party's 2000 Presidential nominee, earning ballot status in seven states (7,746 votes - 8th place - 0.01% ...plus a bunch more write-in votes in New York and other states where election officials refused to tabulate individual write-in votes). The 2000 showing was a far cry from the SP glory days, but a major improvement over the party's 1996 showing. For 2004, former Democratic State Senator Walt Brown of Oregon is the SPUSA Presidential nominee. The party's youth wing -- the Young People's Socialist League -- has been in existence since the 1910s. Another official -- and very useful -- SP-USA resource is the Socialist Party USA Campaign Clearinghouse. The SP-USA's Socialist Net is a resource site covering the international democratic socialist movement and the American Socialist Foundation and an SP-USA affiliated educational group.

Socialist Action - Socialist Action is a Trotskyist political party originally founded by expelled members of the Socialist Workers Party. While the SA shares the SWP's pro-Castro views, the SA still tries to retain its Trotskyist ideological roots (versus the SWP, which has drifted away from Trotskyism towards a more Soviet communist ideology). The SA states that they "oppose the Democrats and Republicans, all capitalist political parties, and all capitalist governments and their representatives everywhere ... [and] Stalinist and neo-Stalinist regimes from the ex-Soviet Union to China." To date, this group of communists have fielded some local political candidates in San Francisco and a few other communities. Youth for Socialist Action is the youth wing of the party.

Socialist Equality Party - The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) Jerry White for President (SEP) 1996was originally named the Workers League (WL). The WL was founded in 1966 as a Trotskyist communist group closely associated with the electoral campaigns of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The goal of these Trotskyist groups was a build a working-class labor party in the US affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International (the global Trotskyist umbrella network). They believe that "the egalitarian and internationalist legacy of the Russian Revolution" could have succeeded, but was "betrayed by Stalinism" and its progeny. When the SWP drifted away from Trotskyism in the early 1980s, the WL broke with the SWP and began fielding its own candidates. The WL fielded its first Presidential ticket in 1984. The WL later renamed itself as the Socialist Equality Party in 1994. The Michigan-based SEP regularly fielded Congressional and local candidates in several states in the late 1980s and 1990s. 1996 SEP Presidential nominee Jerry White was on the ballot in only three states and captured just 2,400 votes. After 1996, the SEP failed to field any candidates for any office until an SEP member competed in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election (6,700 votes - 14th place out of 135). The SEP subsequently announced that it would field a 2004 Presidential ticket and as many Congressional candidates as possible. The SEP is very realistic about its chances for success in the election, acknowledging that they will "win only a limited number of votes." To the SEP, the campaign is an opportunity to "present a socialist alternative to the demagogy and lies of the establishment parties and the mass media." The SEP plans to use the 2004 race as a platform to "lay down the programmatic foundations for the building of a mass movement for a revolutionary transformation of American society." Part of that platform invovles replacing captialism with a Marxist system. The SEP also vows to remove all US soldiers from the Middle East, denounces imperialism, promises to "dismantle the Pentagon war machine" and eliminate weapons of mass destruction held by the US, and adopt "a socialist foreign policy based on international working class solidarity." If the SEP ticket gets on any ballots in 2004, they are unlikely to draw many votes. The SEP's news site -- the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) -- is updated daily with articles, analysis, history, etc., written with a hardcore internationalist, Trotskyist perspective.

Socialist Labor Party - Founded Blomen-Taylor (SLP) - 1968in 1877, the SLP is a militant democratic socialist party. More moderate members of the SLP bolted to create the Socialist Party USA in 1901. The SLP ran Presidential tickets in every election between 1892 and 1976 (the SLP's final presidential candidate won 9,600 votes in the 1976 race). The high cost of fielding a Presidential ticket and restrictive ballot access laws caused the SLP to abandon future Presidential races in favor of nominating candidates for lower offices. The SLP -- which bills itself as the party of "Marxism-DeLeonism" -- still fields a few local candidates (mainly in New Jersey). The site features party history, info on Daniel DeLeon, a Marx-Engels archive, links and more. The SLP newspaper The People, first printed in 1891, also publishes regularly updated online editions.

Socialist Workers Party - OriginallySocialist Workers Party - 1980 a pro-Trotsky faction within the Communist Party USA, the SWP was formed in 1938 after the CPUSA -- acting on orders from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin -- expelled the American Trotskyites. The SWP was for many years the leading voice of Trotskyism in the USA. Since the 1980s, the SWP has drifted away from Trotskyism and moved towards the brand of authoritarian politics espoused by Cuban leader Fidel Castro's style of Marxism (the SWP sites calls Castro's Cuba "a shining example for all workers"). The SWP has run candidates for President in every election since 1948 -- plus local candidates in various states. Marxist political organizer James Harris was the SWP Presidential nominee in 1996 (ballot status in 11 states - 8,500 votes - 0.01%) and 2000 (ballot status in 14 states - 7,378 votes - 9th place - 0.01%). You can also read the SWP's newspapers The Militant (English) and Perspectiva Mundial (Spanish) online. It appears that SWP National Chair Martin Koppel will be the SWP Presidential nominee in 2004 -- even though he is constitutionally ineligible because he is a foreign-born, naturalized US citizen.

Democratic Socialists of America - The DSA is the official US full Democratic Socialistsmember party of the Socialist International (which includes Tony Blair's UK Labour Party, the French Parti Socialiste and nearly 140 other political parties around the globe). Unlike most other members of the Socialist International, the DSA has never fielded candidates for office. The DSA explains their mission as follows: "building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics." Thus, the DSA is less like a traditional US political party and much more like a political education and grassroots activism organization. The other US full member of the Socialist International is the Social Democrats USA (linked below). Both DSA and SD-USA each claim to be the one true heir to the ideological legacy of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas -- and neither one ever fields any candidates. The DSA -- then named the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) -- split from the SDUSA in 1972 in a rift over the Vietnam War (SDUSA supported the war and opposed McGovern for President; DSOC supported McGovern and opposed the war).

http://www.cpusa.org/
http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://www.socialistaction.org/
http://www.socialequality.com/

Now today children, we are going to learn about commies!

I fail to see how that refutes anything I said. None of those parties are a factor in American politics. Practically all of the socialist parties that you listed are splinter groups of what was once the socialist party. That did have influence in politics at all levels of government. Up until their leaders ended up in prison for anti-war statements.

You said America didn't have a socialist/social democratic party. You have been provided with seven. I think that refutes you rather nicely.

Hmm... I must've misread your post. When you said "just blaming Bush is a cop-out" I took it as to say "Others have done it, so it's okay if he does it too."

Meh, whatev.

Mmmm okay. Not what I was trying to convey. I mean't in terms of influence and sway of the political landscape. My bad.

I'm still probably wrong though. The pro-war socialists that merged with the Democrats during Vietnam could probably count now that I think of it.

It's all good. I seem to not be articulating myself very well lately.... and find myself defending Bush. :doh: