First amendment under attack

[sfc 1]

So now the administration is going after reporters, you have to wonder with almost complete lack of oversight, arbitrary classification of material to support the administrations political gains where this is leading...

Very sad :(

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/prosecuting.reporters.ap/index.html

[warpedskydiver 0]

Gonzales: U.S. could track reporters' phone calls
Director of press group says that would 'chill' free speech

Sunday, May 21, 2006; Posted: 4:30 p.m. EDT (20:30 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name as well as the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she presumed that Gonzales was referring to the 1917 Espionage Act, which she said has never been interpreted to prosecute journalists who were providing information to the public.

"I can't imagine a bigger chill on free speech and the public's right to know what it's government is up to -- both hallmarks of a democracy -- than prosecuting reporters," Dalglish said.

Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.

He also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources.

"We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard.

But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."

"It can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," Gonzales said on ABC's "This Week."

Quote

I guess we now have reporters telling us how to interpret our LAWS.

Wasn't she just confirmed to become the Chief Justice of SCOTUS?

• Quote

[TheAnvil 0]

I'm not sure if I agree that it's an attack on the first ammendment. If a reporter publishes classified information, I completely support the government going after the worthless traitor piece of shit that leaked the information to the reporter. If the reporter published the information knowing that doing so would harm the U.S., then they're a traitor as well.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Channman 2]

Its about time reporters where held to account for assisting in the leaking of classified information.

They have no first amendment right when it comes to committing a crime.

[billvon 3,111]

>Its about time reporters where held to account for assisting in the
>leaking of classified information.

Yep. Time to ressurect the Plumbers.

[Andy9o8 2]

I understand your gut feelings on this, guys, but the US Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the news media on essentially this point, in the "Penatagon Papers" case, formally known as NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 US 713 (1971).

[lawrocket 3]

First Amendment under attack? What part? The Religion part? Or the free-speech part?

The free-speech part has been under attack for a while now, what with prior restraints on free speech becoming allowable in order to maintain sensitivity and make sure people from "groups" unworthy of protection do not say anything offensive to any individuals from certain "groups" worthy of protection.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

I remember the case, but not the particulars. The gov't does have the right to go after the traitor who leaked the information to the reporter, however, and phone records of the reporter would aid in doing so and should therefore be fair game.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lummy 4]

Quote

however, and phone records of the reporter would aid in doing so and should therefore be fair game.

but the government already has the reporters phone records

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I remember the case, but not the particulars. The gov't does have the right to go after the traitor who leaked the information to the reporter

Sure. Fair game.....to an extent. When the government behaves illegally or disgracefully, sometimes only a whistleblower's disclosures can put a stop to it.

Quote

and phone records of the reporter would aid in doing so and should therefore be fair game.

No f***ing way. If the reporters cannot protect their sources and methods, they cannot do their jobs; and if they can't do thier jobs, "freedom of the press" is nonexistent.

Conservatives understand just how much the US military, the CIA, the FBI, etc. are integral to maintaining the USA as a free and democratic nation.

Liberals understand just how much a free, robust and unfettered press, public disclosure of governmental abuses, and in-your-face political activism, are integral to maintaining the USA as a free and democratic nation.

What well-informed Moderates understand: put them together, and that's the real world.

[TheAnvil 0]

OH, I disagree. Getting the phone records of a reporter as a means to track down a traitor leaking classified information is not abridging the freedom of the press at all. The reporter would have published info he/she obtained without censorship by the government.

I don't see how obtaining such records would lead to censorship.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Andy9o8 2]

The idea being: a reporter’s ability to report is inextricably linked to his ability to gather information from confidential sources. A nation whose press does its reporting without confidential sources is not a free, democratic nation. If the sources believe that their identities will be discovered, they will never be willing to speak to reporters. That will dry up confidential sources. So if you dry up confidential sources, you’re drying up a free press. Might as well just publish the sports scores and the official daily Pentagon press briefing, and we can all renew our subscriptions to Pravda.

[Amazon 7]

So... basically you are ok with CLASSIFYING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHINGthat the "government" does..... that way any leak whatsoever about any corruption owr wrongdoing is a crime... hmm interesting position from a "libertarian" Vinnie.

[Andy9o8 2]

Tell you what, forget the debate over whether whistleblowers are heros or heels.

Just look at it this way: Surely you understand the importance of the police receiving information from “confidential sources”? They’re called “snitches”, and the cops rely pretty heavily on them. Are the snitches bottom-feeders? Yeah, sometimes they are. And the courts of many states protect their identities from being revealed. In the case of cops, it would be much harder to do their jobs without snitches. In the case of reporters, it would be impossible.

[TheAnvil 0]

Not at all. I do not support traitors who leak classified information hiding behind the first ammendment.

Sources of classified information should dry up. Such information has no business being leaked to the press in the first place. Those leaking it are traitors who should be incarcerated.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

>I do not support traitors who leak classified information hiding
>behind the first ammendment.

I don't either. But I do support the first amendment even when it is used to do things that I dislike.

>Those leaking it are traitors who should be incarcerated.

Agreed. But that does NOT extend to people who discuss the leak, whether they are in the press, or on the internet, or in the media.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sources The amount of knee jerk classified information should dry up

There fixed it for you


The "government" ie.. this administration is classifying way too many things it finds embarrassing.... and then declassifying things with no rhyme nor reason.. for political advantage... I would think that you as a "libertarian" would find that appalling.

[TheAnvil 0]

Grabbing the phone records of the reporter in question does nothing to bar him/her from publishing anything. Their freedom to print is not abridged by doing so. It's a common sense investigative thing that should be done everytime information is compromised in such a manner so the traitor who leaked the info may be found and prosecuted.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

I'm unfamiliar with what you're alluding to.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[livendive 8]

Quote

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Not if the information being leaked deals with illegal actions by our government. Then it's pretty much apples and apples.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292


http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

BUT in the interim.. it seems to have run amock

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/secrecy_report/pdf/pdf_secrecy_report.pdf

Open and accountable government is one of the bedrock principles of our democracy. Yet virtually since inauguration day, questions have been raised about the Bush Administration’s commitment to this principle. News articles and reports by independent groups over the last four years have identified a growing series of instances where the Administration has sought to operate without public or congressional scrutiny.

At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report is a comprehensive examination of secrecy in the Bush Administration. It analyzes how the Administration has implemented each of our nation’s major open government laws. The report finds that there has been a consistent pattern in the Administration’s actions: laws that are designed to promote public access to information have been undermined, while laws that authorize the government to withhold information or to operate in secret have repeatedly been expanded. The cumulative result is an unprecedented assault on the principle of open government.

The Administration has supported amendments to open government laws to create new categories of protected information that can be withheld from the public. President Bush has issued an executive order sharply restricting the public release of the papers of past presidents. The Administration has expanded the authority to classify documents and dramatically increased the number of documents classified. It has used the USA Patriot Act and novel legal theories to justify secret investigations, detentions, and trials. And the Administration has engaged in litigation to contest Congress’ right to information.

The records at issue have covered a vast array of topics, ranging from simple census data and routine agency correspondence to presidential and vice presidential records. Among the documents that the Administration has refused to release to the public and members of Congress are (1) the contacts between energy companies and the Vice President’s energy task force, (2) the communications between the Defense Department and the Vice President’s office regarding contracts awarded to Halliburton, (3) documents describing the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, (4) memoranda revealing what the White House knew about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and (5) the cost estimates of the Medicare prescription drug legislation withheld from Congress.

There are three main categories of federal open government laws: (1) laws that provide public access to federal records; (2) laws that allow the government to restrict public access to federal information; and (3) laws that provide for congressional access to federal records. In each area, the Bush Administration has acted to restrict the amount of government information that is available.

[Andy9o8 2]

I realize people leaking classified information are lawbreakers. But part of the problem is that the fox is in charge of the henhouse. The government decides which information to classify. The government’s authority to classify, as well its authority to de-classify, can be abused. In a democracy, the power to correct governmental malfeasance is vested in the people. But the people are disabled from exercising that power – and thereby effectively disenfranchised – if the people are unaware that the malfeasance has occurred in the first place. That’s where the whistleblower, and the press, come into the picture. What are citizens of a democracy to do when their government acts illegally or behaves disgracefully, but then covers its ass by classifying information about its crimes or disgraceful behavior?

[TheAnvil 0]

What portion of the ammended EO do you have a problem with?

After Waxman's hijinks over the past few years, I dont really give a lot of credibility to any reports prepared specifically for him by a bunch of dem staffers.

What specifically do you think should be open source that GWB's administration has covered up under the guise of secrecy? The only think that puzzles me is your #5 and #1. Reason #1 would be executive privilege and not national security reasons for keeping it private. I don't know why anybody would consider Medicare cost estimates non-open source for any reason.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

The so-called whistle blowers have mechanisms via the house and senate oversight committees and FISA courts to air grievances. Going to the press is treasonous.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!