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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

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

Quote:

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week.

That could do it too.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Arainach

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

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...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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 Minion

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Gumby

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 [b[are not covered by the Geneva Convention.[/b]

Again, what does this have to do with wiretapping?

What you say??!

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

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

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 Watts

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.