Bill could authorize prosecution for mentioning administration wiretapping

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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 Some were repealed in some cases, and some are still on the books to this day.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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Arainach

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

Now while things are a little different in the case her discussed, 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...

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Atomic Duck

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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

Thanks for reinforcing my points at least.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Moth

Watts, why this fascination with splitting this debate into "Democrats Vs. Republicans" when the issue at hand is about "The Government Vs. The People"?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Yet there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moth

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

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

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

What?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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

Most amazing jew boots