Prosecute the Leakers

[Annie]

You mean the Justice Department that Alberto Gonzalez said didn't investigate the NSA wiretaps because Bush told them not to? That Justice Department?

You think watergate would ever have come to light but for the Washington Post? You think Nixon would have used the "process"?

Sorry... I want a free press to shed light on nefarious doings....so did the founding fathers, hence the First Amendment.

Jillian I know that you are smart enough to recognize when the whistle blower procedures were implemented. So, you must think everyone else on the board are too ignorant to do the same. False premise. This is ding worthy, but I won't.

 

[jillian]

Jillian I know that you are smart enough to recognize when the whistle blower procedures were implemented. So, you must think everyone else on the board are too ignorant to do the same. False premise. This is ding worthy, but I won't.

I don't believe it's a false premise as Alberto Gonzalez DID say he couldn't investigate the NSA actions because Bush asked him not to.

Oh...and just to add a little more food for thought, the Supreme Court essentially just took away all whistleblower protection.

People can't be trusted to police themselves from within....especially in government. I wish they could. They can't.

 

[KarlMarx]

You mean the Justice Department that Alberto Gonzalez said didn't investigate the NSA wiretaps because Bush told them not to? That Justice Department?

You think watergate would ever have come to light but for the Washington Post? You think Nixon would have used the "process"?

Sorry... I want a free press to shed light on nefarious doings....so did the founding fathers, hence the First Amendment.

Do we have to bring up "In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001"?
Note the last sentence
"The Court also noted (but made no judgment regarding) "the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance" which relates to part of the government justification in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Re_Sealed_Case_No._02-001

Now, if a court already ruled the president had the right to conduct warantless wiretaps, what purpose did the NYT's divulging the existence of the NSA wiretap program serve? And if the NYT were actually fair and balanced, why is there no mention of this case anywhere except in the "conservative" news media? I'll tell you my opinion, the purpose of printing the story was to embarrass the president, nothing more. There was no question as to the legality of this program, there already was oversight through the judicial branch. Who died and appointed the NYT guardian of our constitutional rights? Pinch Sulzberger Sr?

I also have to say something about Watergate. It has been said, that if there had been a Fox News, Drudge Report, and Internet, back in those days, Watergate would have turned out much differently. Watergate was a media circus, there were only three networks and the newspapers and no one to challenge them. I can attest to that, it was non-stop Watergate for about two years. The press already had a bone to pick with Nixon long before anyone ever heard of the Watergate hotel. My opinion is that they were still sore at him for his role in the McCarthy hearings from the 1950s (BTW, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were spies for Stalin)

The same thing goes for Vietnam. I'm not going to lay the blame for losing that war entirely at the press's feet, but I don't think they helped. Relaying pictures of the war to the US in time for them to see in on the news at dinnertime helped to turn public opinion against the war, undermined the war effort and gave ammunition to the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement that was funded by the Soviet Union, by the way.

I think what you are suggesting is that the press should be an unelected branch of the government that has oversight over everyone and is accountable to no one. We already have one of those thanks, and they run around in black robes.

The press should be held accountable for leaking classified information to the public. At the very least, subpoenas should be issued to the reporters who revealed the information with the order to reveal their sources or go to jail for contempt of court. Disclosing classified information to the those without a need to know and without the proper clearance is a federal offense.

If I had done such a thing where I work, I would have been fired, the authorities would be brought in and I would be facing criminal charges. But, if I worked for the press, I could hide behind the First Amendment. I don't see how freedom of the press gives license to break the law and undermine national security. When classified information is improperly disclosed, people's lives are put at risk. People may die as a result of this exercise in freedom of the press.

So, the New York Times blabbed and people died.

 

[musicman]

I also have to say something about Watergate. It has been said, that if there had been a Fox News, Drudge Report, and Internet, back in those days, Watergate would have turned out much differently. Watergate was a media circus, there were only three networks and the newspapers and no one to challenge them. I can attest to that, it was non-stop Watergate for about two years.

Right on the money, Karl. I can't remember who wrote, "Sam Ervin was able to get away with saying, 'Watergate is the worst tragedy in our nation's history - worse, even, than the Civil War', simply because there was no one around to laugh out loud in derision". But that is the simple truth of the matter. There are people alive today who have - in their wildest imaginings - no concept of the information blackout under which this country existed for decades. Now, THAT was a tragedy!

The press already had a bone to pick with Nixon long before anyone ever heard of the Watergate hotel. My opinion is that they were still sore at him for his role in the McCarthy hearings from the 1950s (BTW, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were spies for Stalin)

I agree 100%, and would add that "the press" and "the left" are - in this context - interchangeable. You've got to say this for the left: they never forget a grudge. Nixon busted their balls in the 50's, and wore a target on his back for the rest of his life because of it. His paranoia was almost understandable; the truth is simply not in the left - they honor only political expediency. And, for this holy grail, they will stop at nothing. I thank God every day that the blackout is over. I also remind myself: the left is as aware as I am that - absent a monopoly on the dissemination of information - their days of wielding any meaningful power are over. They are cornered rats, fighting for their ideological lives; NOTHING they do will surprise me.

Watch the Internet; this is where they must strike. Tyranny neither tolerates open discourse, nor cheerfully walks away from power.

 

[Dr Grump]

Watch the Internet; this is where they must strike. Tyranny neither tolerates open discourse, nor cheerfully walks away from power.

As the current occupant of the WH and his cronies prove ad nauseum....

 

[dilloduck]

As the current occupant of the WH and his cronies prove ad nauseum....

Whine Whine Whine---talk about ad nauseum ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Dr Grump]

Whine Whine Whine---talk about ad nauseum ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Holy heck, a Texan sticking up for a transplant! What next from that wonderful state, redrawing of political boundries so that repubs can get more reps in congress...:ali: oh, that's right...too late...

 

[dilloduck]

Holy heck, a Texan sticking up for a transplant! What next from that wonderful state, redrawing of political boundries so that repubs can get more reps in congress...:ali: oh, that's right...too late...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=461883&postcount=26

 

[Dr Grump]

Heh

 

[KarlMarx]

Holy heck, a Texan sticking up for a transplant! What next from that wonderful state, redrawing of political boundries so that repubs can get more reps in congress...:ali: oh, that's right...too late...

What was that piece of legislation that just passed through Congress? Oh the emergency provisions to the voting rights act of 1965?


From that "extremist" publication, National Review (NR Digital Edition 07/17/06)

In the 1990s, the act was used to pack black voters into congressional districts so as to elect black candidates (and to pack Hispanic voters into districts so as to elect Hispanics). These “majority minority” districts have been overwhelmingly Democratic. Creating them, by concentrating Democratic voters, has reduced the total number of Democratic-leaning districts. Congressman Tom Feeney, a Florida Republican, says that the Voting Rights Act was as important as the Contract with America in giving his party control of Congress, and that it remains vital. This is a reasonable assessment.

This racial gerrymandering has also made congressional elections less competitive. It has contributed to the racial polarization of the parties, keeping Republican House members from representing many black or Hispanic voters and keeping such voters from being able to vote for many viable Republican candidates for House seats. It has also made it harder for minority candidates to develop the multiracial followings necessary to win statewide office.

 

[musicman]

Watch the Internet; this is where they must strike. Tyranny neither tolerates open discourse, nor cheerfully walks away from power.

As the current occupant of the WH and his cronies prove ad nauseum....

Just to be on the safe side, I copied and pasted the portion of my post that you chose to quote, and therefore - presumably - respond to.

Would you please explain to me how your post is even remotely related to my quote?

 

[jillian]

Do we have to bring up "In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001"?
Note the last sentence
"The Court also noted (but made no judgment regarding) "the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance" which relates to part of the government justification in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Re_Sealed_Case_No._02-001

Now, if a court already ruled the president had the right to conduct warantless wiretaps, what purpose did the NYT's divulging the existence of the NSA wiretap program serve? And if the NYT were actually fair and balanced, why is there no mention of this case anywhere except in the "conservative" news media? I'll tell you my opinion, the purpose of printing the story was to embarrass the president, nothing more. There was no question as to the legality of this program, there already was oversight through the judicial branch. Who died and appointed the NYT guardian of our constitutional rights? Pinch Sulzberger Sr?

The Court ruled that the president had the right to seek a warrant nunc pro tunc within a brief period of time after commencing the surveillance. This admin violated the FISA law by not seeking a FISA warrant and then ordered it's attorney general not to investigate.

I also have to say something about Watergate. It has been said, that if there had been a Fox News, Drudge Report, and Internet, back in those days, Watergate would have turned out much differently. Watergate was a media circus, there were only three networks and the newspapers and no one to challenge them. I can attest to that, it was non-stop Watergate for about two years. The press already had a bone to pick with Nixon long before anyone ever heard of the Watergate hotel. My opinion is that they were still sore at him for his role in the McCarthy hearings from the 1950s (BTW, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were spies for Stalin)

It's taken me a while to respond to you because I'm still a bit boggled that people are engaging in revisionist history about Watergate. The fact that you cite to Fox and Drudge and the internet as the type of propaganda that Nixon needed to stay in office proves my point that these outlets are little more than shills for the administration. BTW, the "liberal media" as embodied by Fox is owned, controlled and orchestrated by Rupert Murdoch for the express purpose of advancing his political agenda. It certainly isn't "fair and balanced"; nor do I think media should be. I think media has to make moral choices.

I am fully aware, however, that this admin, having no shame, would never have stepped down from power, regardless of the good of the country, even in the face of a "cancer on the presidency".

The same thing goes for Vietnam. I'm not going to lay the blame for losing that war entirely at the press's feet, but I don't think they helped. Relaying pictures of the war to the US in time for them to see in on the news at dinnertime helped to turn public opinion against the war, undermined the war effort and gave ammunition to the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement that was funded by the Soviet Union, by the way.

The anti-war movement funded by the Soviet Union. Er... got a reliable link to that one?

I think the only reason that Iraq hasn't engendered the same level of opposition is that there isn't a draft now, so the average college kid sitting in his dorm room and his parents have no vested interest in the reasons for which their kids are being sent to die.

I think what you are suggesting is that the press should be an unelected branch of the government that has oversight over everyone and is accountable to no one. We already have one of those thanks, and they run around in black robes.

No, I believe, as the Founding Fathers did, that the press is there to keep the populace informed and prevent tyranny.

The press should be held accountable for leaking classified information to the public. At the very least, subpoenas should be issued to the reporters who revealed the information with the order to reveal their sources or go to jail for contempt of court. Disclosing classified information to the those without a need to know and without the proper clearance is a federal offense.

Yeah...but it didn't trouble you when it was Valerie Plame's name that was being disclosed. And if the whitehouse has a problem with leaks, it should clean its own house. Luckily, there are people who love our country who aren't allowing them to remain totally immune to scrutiny.

If I had done such a thing where I work, I would have been fired, the authorities would be brought in and I would be facing criminal charges. But, if I worked for the press, I could hide behind the First Amendment. I don't see how freedom of the press gives license to break the law and undermine national security. When classified information is improperly disclosed, people's lives are put at risk. People may die as a result of this exercise in freedom of the press.

What a bunch of bull. Bush had already disclosed that the bank records of suspected terrorists were being looked at. Gary Hart talked about it years ago, and John Kerry was involved in orchestrating such exercises from the Senate well before he ran for president.

So, the New York Times blabbed and people died.

Again.... not the case.

 

[Gunny]

The problem is, how do you determine someone who just leaks information, from someone who is blowing the whistle on something that is flat out wrong? Hmm? The precedent that we set here and now may have extremely dangerous repurcutions for the future. Keep in mind, that the media is the only way the public found out about Watergate.

Watergate was the actual commission of a crime and no classified information was revealed.

Disclosing information that is classified for the purpose of security IS a crime.

You're comparing apples-n-oranges.

 

[KarlMarx]

The Court ruled that the president had the right to seek a warrant nunc pro tunc within a brief period of time after commencing the surveillance. This admin violated the FISA law by not seeking a FISA warrant and then ordered it's attorney general not to investigate.

Don't know about that. I read the decision and didn't see the term used. However the conclusion does have this passage:

"Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test
drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

If I understand the gist of the decision, it is thus:
1. The Executive Branch does have the right to conduct warrantless searches if the primary (and I believe the decision uses less restrictive language) focus of the surveillance is to listen in on agents of foreign powers and their collaborators (even if the collaborators are American citizens).
2. The Executive Branch may use this information in a criminal prosecution against the foreign agents or their collaborators if they are involved in criminal activities while carrying out actions against the United States on behalf of a foreign or hostile power.

It's taken me a while to respond to you because I'm still a bit boggled that people are engaging in revisionist history about Watergate. The fact that you cite to Fox and Drudge and the internet as the type of propaganda that Nixon needed to stay in office proves my point that these outlets are little more than shills for the administration. BTW, the "liberal media" as embodied by Fox is owned, controlled and orchestrated by Rupert Murdoch for the express purpose of advancing his political agenda. It certainly isn't "fair and balanced"; nor do I think media should be. I think media has to make moral choices.

The propaganda was in the news media itself. The fact is that there are now more news sources for people to rely on. In 1974, only three major networks existed and some newspapers. There was no CNN, and no USAToday, no talk radio (the fairness doctrine made political talk shows outside of the networks prohibitive and limited freedom of political discourse). If anything, today's environment is less prone to "propaganda" as you call it, since there many news sources and a growing number with a different point of view than the mainstream media.

Rupert Murdoch just gave a big campaign donation to Hillary Clinton... how does that fit into his plans for right wing world domination? Oh, I see, Hillary is a double agent! Very clever!

BY the way, why is Rupert Murdoch's ownership of news media so scary, but campaign donations to the Clinton campaign by the People's Republic of China aren't? Isn't George Soros, another foreigner a big contributor to the DNC? The man's a billionaire, he doesn't have a political agenda?

I am fully aware, however, that this admin, having no shame, would never have stepped down from power, regardless of the good of the country, even in the face of a "cancer on the presidency".

The good of the country or the good of the DNC?

The anti-war movement funded by the Soviet Union. Er... got a reliable link to that one?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19815

Especially this paragraph....

To understand what really happened we should consider the statements of Col. Stanislav Lunev, a high-ranking Russian defector to the United States. Lunev worked for the GRU, which is the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) General Staff. According to Lunev, the GRU believed itself responsible for North Vietnam's final victory. In Lunev's book, "Through the Eyes of the Enemy," he says that his GRU instructors and superiors would not directly claim credit, but "they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success."

How was this success supposedly achieved?

According to Lunev, the GRU and KGB "helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad." This funding, said Lunev, was provided "via undercover operatives or front organizations." More amazing still, Lunev claims that the GRU and KGB "had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States than it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese."

I think the only reason that Iraq hasn't engendered the same level of opposition is that there isn't a draft now, so the average college kid sitting in his dorm room and his parents have no vested interest in the reasons for which their kids are being sent to die.

If that's true, then why the big push to bring the troops home? Why all the anti-war protests? Why Cindy Sheehan etc etc etc?

No, I believe, as the Founding Fathers did, that the press is there to keep the populace informed and prevent tyranny.

What if the press acts in a reckless and irresponsible way? Suppose that the NYT leaked the details of the D-Day invasion just before it happened? I think that the press is essential to our freedoms, but at the same time, they have a responsibility to draw the line between informing the public and undermining national security.

Yeah...but it didn't trouble you when it was Valerie Plame's name that was being disclosed. And if the whitehouse has a problem with leaks, it should clean its own house. Luckily, there are people who love our country who aren't allowing them to remain totally immune to scrutiny.

I'd like to know exactly what disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as a so called covert agent did to national security. Secondly, it's been shown that the person that leaked her name to the press was acting on his own, and was not found to be taking orders from Bush or any other member of the Administration. Also, if leaking her name was such a terrible thing, why has her face been plastered over every billboard, TV screen and newspaper in the country? Especially posing with her husband, Joe Wilson! Is her husband and the media in on the conspiracy, too?

Oh yes, and a three year investigation was launched over the entire deal, remember? I wonder, do you think, maybe, that the NYT will be held accountable for this and for spilling the beans on the NSA wiretaps? Hmmmm, yes, of course, when pigs learn to fly!

What a bunch of bull. Bush had already disclosed that the bank records of suspected terrorists were being looked at. Gary Hart talked about it years ago, and John Kerry was involved in orchestrating such exercises from the Senate well before he ran for president.

And they disclosed all the details, I suppose... like this!

Last Friday, the Times did it again, printing a story revealing the existence of U.S. government monitoring of financial transactions routed through the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion a day in electronic money transfers around the world. The monitoring is conducted by the CIA and supervised by the Treasury Department. An independent auditing firm has been hired to make sure only terrorist-related transactions are targeted.
As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan.

Again.... not the case.

So Mohammed says"Hey Abdul, they're onto us! Let's us a different way of trafficking money!" and the guys at the CIA and Treasury department now have to work another few years to find out where they decided to send that money (and believe me, I don't think they'll be checking out which banks in the Middle East gave out a free toaster lately). The Osama says, "Hey... how did they find out about that payment? Someone must have talked! Get the hit men and kill everyone associated with that operation, we obviously have a traitor in our midst!"