SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (186096)5/3/2006 2:38:37 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
In Leak Cases, New Pressure on Journalists

By ADAM LIPTAK

driftglass.blogspot.com

April 30, 2006

Earlier administrations have fired and prosecuted government officials who provided classified information to the press. They have also tried to force reporters to identify their sources.

But the Bush administration is exploring a more radical measure to protect information it says is vital to national security: the criminal prosecution of reporters under the espionage laws.

Such an approach would signal a thorough revision of the informal rules of engagement that have governed the relationship between the press and the government for many decades. Leaking in Washington is commonplace and typically entails tolerable risks for government officials and, at worst, the possibility of subpoenas to journalists seeking the identities of sources.

But the Bush administration is putting pressure on the press as never before, and it is operating in a judicial climate that seems increasingly receptive to constraints on journalists.

Surprising Move by F.B.I.

One example of the administration's new approach is the F.B.I.'s recent effort to reclaim classified documents in the files of the late columnist Jack Anderson, a move that legal experts say was surprising if not unheard of.

"Under the law," Bill Carter, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said earlier this month, "no private person may possess classified documents that were illegally provided to them."

Critics of the administration position say that altering the conventional understanding between the press and government could have dire consequences.

"Once you make the press the defendant rather than the leaker," said David Rudenstine, the dean of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York and a First Amendment scholar, "you really shut down the flow of information because the government will always know who the defendant is."


Others say the law is unconstitutional as applied to the press under the First Amendment.

"I don't think that anyone believes that statute is constitutional," said James C. Goodale, who was the general counsel of The New York Times Company during the Pentagon Papers litigation. "Literally read, the statute must be violated countless times every year."

Rodney A. Smolla, the dean of the University of Richmond law school, took a middle ground. He said the existing laws were ambiguous but that in theory it could be constitutional to make receiving classified information a crime. However, he continued, the First Amendment may protect newspapers exposing wrongdoing by the government.

The two newspapers contend that their reporting did bring to light important information about potential government misconduct. Representatives of the papers said they had not been contacted by government investigators in connection with the two articles.

That is baffling, Mr. McCarthy said. At a minimum, he said, the reporters involved should be threatened with prosecution in an effort to learn their sources.


If you believe that democracy is a government that belongs to the people and a free and vigorous press is a prerequisite to the people exercising that ownership responsibly, then you can feel the knife at your throat.

If you believe democracy is a quaint relic that has no place in the modern world, then you love this shit. You’ve been waiting in state of frustrated fascist blueballery since Nixon called it quits.

You believe the people have no business knowing what the government is up to.

You believe your rights as alienable as hell. That they’re on loan to you from the State, who has every right to take them away from you when you get all uppity. Or curious. Or you persistently keep your melanin levels willfully and premeditatedly high.

You believe that the purpose of “News” is to keep you entertained. To slip its aardvark tongue deep into your ear to tickle you and tell you only what you want to hear.

You believe people who tell you pretty lies and f_ _k your children’s future into a shallow grave are your friends, and people who tell you blunt truths and try to keep you and everyone you love from flying off the cliff towards which you are being stampeded are your enemies.

You are, in other words, a loyal Republican.

posted by driftglass @ 1:05 AM



To: michael97123 who wrote (186096)5/3/2006 2:43:49 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Impeachment Weighed Again
______________________________________________________

President Bush's actions threaten basic freedoms and the American system of checks and balances.

by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky

Published on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 by the Philadelphia Inquirer

Who would have thought, just seven years after the Clinton impeachment farce, we'd again be considering impeachment? Yet here we are, five years into the Bush presidency, and again impeachment is in the air.

For some time, opponents of the Iraq War have been calling for impeachment. You could see their signs at marches, but given Republican control of the House, it was hard to take the idea seriously.

In recent months, though, impeachment calls have gained a new seriousness - and wider public support - and for good reason: this November, a shift of only 15 House seats would give Democrats control of the House and of the Judiciary Committee. Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), who would become Judiciary Committee chair, has already submitted a bill calling for an investigation into impeachable crimes, and would certainly welcome an impeachment bill.

More important, over the last five years, Bush has become the Willie Sutton of constitutional violators. While the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about sex was a case of frivolous political harassment, this president's many "high crimes and misdemeanors" pose such a threat to basic freedoms, and to the system of checks and balances, that not to impeach would be irresponsible.

Among Bush's most serious impeachable actions:

Lying to Congress and the American people about the need to invade Iraq. It has become increasingly clear that Iraq had no nuclear program, no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no imminent threat to America. It was a lie when Bush told Americans we were at risk of attack in 2002 and 2003, and it was a lie when, on March 18, 2003, he wrote Congress to announce his invasion of Iraq, saying it posed a threat to America and was linked to 9/11.

Refusing to cooperate with congressional and 9/11 Commission probes. To this day, the White House has refused to respond to legitimate requests from such committees for information needed to investigate 9/11, and to help guard against future attacks.

Violating the Bill of Rights. President Bush has willfully authorized the indefinite detention without charge of U.S. citizens and the detention and deportation of legal residents, and has illegally used the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without a court order.

Obstruction of justice. While the special counsel's investigation is continuing, it appears that Bush was at least aware of efforts to cover up, and may well have been involved in, a White House campaign to punish and discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally exposing his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative.

War crimes. There is powerful evidence Bush authorized, promoted, and then attempted to cover up a policy of kidnapping, "renditioning" and torture, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is a signatory. He also waged a war of aggression, and engaged in a conspiracy to promote that war - all of which is a "crime against peace" under the Nuremberg Charter, which the United States helped to write.

Abuse of power. Bush has willfully ignored more than 750 acts passed by Congress.

Criminal negligence. Incompetence isn't impeachable, but, in the cases such as Bush's abject failure to deal with the threat and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or in his failure to adequately protect troops sent into Iraq, or to plan for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, gross incompetence becomes criminal negligence. The same is true of this president's perhaps greatest crime: his failure to deal with, and his willful obstruction of efforts to ward off, global warming.

Critics argue that it's wrong to impeach if there is no chance the Senate will convict. We disagree. This president's constitutional crimes have never been fully investigated, or, in many cases, investigated at all. Yet remember, it was only during the Watergate and impeachment hearings that Richard Nixon's most serious crimes came to light. Who knows what even Senate Republicans would do once witnesses, compelled to testify under oath in a House Judiciary Committee, started to tell the truth about Bush administration actions?

For all these reasons, impeachment should be a key issue this election year, and a bill of impeachment should be submitted to the next House Judiciary Committee.