Freedom of speech

[Fuzzy Texas Ranger]

Flag burning amendment? New York Times leak information?

It appears that a lot of 1st amendment issues are coming up.. what is your take on these?

Should there be an amendment that bans flag burning? I personally don't care, the only people who burn flags are idiots. Maybe allow flag burning in private and not in public? I know several old people who fought in wars that would murder anyone that burned a flag.

Should the New York Times be charged with treason? I think it's fucked up that they would abuse the 1st amendment and put every American at risk to 'tell the news how it is'. Shame on whoever leaked it for the pay off, shame on the times(and 2 or 3 other news papers).




i hope no one has made a similar thread

[Zogo]

I think flag burning is stupid..but really it's trivial for the amount of time it's talked about. if we let the idiots burn their flags..what's going to happen?

and no I don't think politicians should be able to threaten newspeople or newspapers to not publish stories. as a nation we've been in a state of "war" or military action since who knows when.

we don't want the alien and sedition act coming back. the patriot act is bad enough.

[schtoofa]

The NY Times and related stories are a bunch of crap. Just another example of this world being driven by greed and/or people with fat heads. They do not have a duty to research and disclose secret programs. But, it's what sells in the media these days. Anytime something comes out like this, it's all over for a while and ends up wasting so much of everyone's time.

Oh, btw,
* United States Code
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
+ PART I - CRIMES
# CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Read section 793.*


Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it;...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.


These people who publish "secret" information know that it's secret information. They are breaking the law and deserve to be put in prison.



* reference: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793

[hawk]

Countries with flag burning amendments - Iraq, Cuba, and China. Enough said. How many people would this amendment really affect, 3 or 4, maybe 5. Its so utterly worthless, I don't even know where to start with it.

As far the NYTimes, I am one to acknowledge that there is a limit that journalists can cross. For example, if the US intelligence learned Bin Laden's location and was going to capture him, then no journalist should be able to leak this before it happens because it could potentially mess up the operation. In this case, I don't really see it as being such a big deal. I imagine most terrorists knew that anything they do, including finances, have a good chance of being monitored. This report won't cause any significant changes for them.

[SenSai]

I, for one, am glad the flag burning amendment did not pass. People did not go to war to defend our flag, the went to war to defend the rights of the people of this nation, protecting our liberties and our way of life. When you are sworn into military service, you do not pledge to uphold and defend the flag...you pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution. So, in fact, when people have gone into the service to fight and defend for people, they are also fighting and defending for the right for those same people do such things as burn the flag.

What I don't get is why there are a lot of people out there wanting to have amendments added to the Constitution that take/limit the rights of the people (gay marriage, flag burning). These amendments make about as much sense as prohibition, and we all know how well that turned out. :rolleyes:

As for the NYT revealing of the program, I'm glad that they did. I think people have taken this "war on terror" way beyond what it was supposed to be. It's almost as laughable as the "war on drugs" or the "war on Christmas." It seems like every single action that you do could be see as support and/or act of terror. I believe we've given too much power to the Federal government, and if the NYT gets actions taken upon them, it will be a sad day for America. The newspapers should release information to the people, its healthy to have a distrust for things because it keeps people in check. But alas, this country is becoming so apathetic - it's starting not to surprise me that things like this are happening.

[Pandelli]

These people who publish "secret" information know that it's secret information. They are breaking the law and deserve to be put in prison.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

IMO, its within their right to publish it and it keeps an already too secretive government in check. If they are hard up to punish someone, they can go to the people giving the information. However, they may go for the whistle blower defense.

[Terminotaur]

It dismays me to see such obvious ploys for support in midterm elections. It frightens me even more that this amendment almost reached the supermajority needed in Congress.

I feel frustrated that a significant amount of Americans believe that the freedom to express yourself is outweighed by a piece of cloth. The flag is supposed to symbolize even the freedom to desecrate the flag itself. It's just ludicrous to see people pounding their chest and crowing of the freedoms of America and not even understanding what freedom is supposed to entail.

They do not have a duty to research and disclose secret programs.
Schtoofa, do you agree that the press has a duty to report government abuses, especially covert ones?

[schtoofa]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

IMO, its within their right to publish it and it keeps an already too secretive government in check. If they are hard up to punish someone, they can go to the people giving the information. However, they may go for the whistle blower defense.

I know what the 1st Amendment is, kthx :P If the law I posted were unconstitutional, I'd find it hard to believe that over half a century later, it's still law. Like how it should be, if these cases ever come up, it'll be up to the judicial branch to interpret and decide the fate.

By the way, what's the point of classifying information at all, if it's legal for the press to publish it if they somehow find out about it? I 100% disagree with you on this one. Your buddy Clinton seemed to think it was important for classified information to remain out of the public's eyes, too, within reason. Imagine that. (EO 12958 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html)).

Some NY Times bigshot floozy editor or journalist absolutely does NOT have the authority to decide whether something classified deserves to be classified. Where's the accountability, if they can't be prosecuted?

Congressmen/women are elected and held accountable for doing their jobs and protecting the nation; if they mess up badly enough, they'll be out of office. Government contractors are held accountable for keeping information secret, or else they'll lose contracts and people will lose jobs. Military personnel can potentially lose their lives, or cause their buddies' lives to be lost if they divulge classified information. These folks SHOULD and do have access to classified information, and they're held accountable for keeping it that way. And on top of that, of all the folks in this group, very few people have the authority to declassify information.

Where's the check/balance on the NY Times? Without the threat of fines / imprisonment, there is none. Don't say that if people are that disgusted, they'll just stop buying the NY Times and it'll go out of business because we all know that's a stupid, unrealistic counter-point.

[Terminotaur]

Some NY Times bigshot floozy editor or journalist absolutely does NOT have the authority to decide whether something classified deserves to be classified. Where's the accountability, if they can't be prosecuted?
The question you should ask is where's the accountability in the government if they can classify anything they wish, even their abuses? It has often been rightly said that the press is the fourth branch of government. Do you believe that the press should never report on classified information, even if the classified information is regarding an obvious government abuse? How about if Nixon wanted to suddenly make everything regarding his scandal a classified government secret?

[schtoofa]

Schtoofa, do you agree that the press has a duty to report government abuses, especially covert ones?

The free press is a great tool that helps keep the government honest, no doubt about it. Hell, that we can all talk about this stuff without fear of government retaliation is an awesome aspect of living in this country.

When we talk about covert programs (whether abuses are involved or not) there are opposing forces here. We're in a sticky situation. We have the right to free speech/press vs. the country's requirement that it provide for a common defense (which relies on that certain information stay classified). It's a tough call.

Really, I think the best solution would be to make sure there are mechanisms in place to insure that covert programs don't get abused. Also there should be a really clear whistleblower policy. On top of that, maybe a better and more effective FISA? I don't know. But the press should stay out of "covert" land, because I don't feel they're qualified to know when it's safe disclose classified information. They don't know the full set of ramifications of such a disclosure, and they shouldn't need to.

Suppose the press publishes an article that they know contains classified information, but they print it because they think it might be an abuse. But what if it turns out that our lawmakers and the public agree that it's not an abuse -- then what? What good does that serve? I don't want to run that risk.

The press should be the VERY last resort in these cases. Sometimes they might be right, but there should be other channels that things go through first before classified information is seemingly hastily disclosed (like it has been over the last 6 months or so).

[Pandelli]

Come on Schtoofa, if you're gonna bust someone, bust the person that is leaking the information, not the messenger (in this case, the NY Times). If the administration is doing things that people "in the know" don't think is legal, they are going to continue to leak information to the press.

[schtoofa]

Come on Schtoofa, if you're gonna bust someone, bust the person that is leaking the information, not the messenger (in this case, the NY Times). If the administration is doing things that people "in the know" don't think is legal, they are going to continue to leak information to the press.

I'll be fair about it. I think both the leaker AND the publisher should be busted, because they both know it's classified and they're both divulging it :D

[Pandelli]

lol, fair enough

TO CUBA WITH YOU ALL!!!!! :D

[Terminotaur]

Really, I think the best solution would be to make sure there are mechanisms in place to insure that covert programs don't get abused.
Mechanisms ran by and set up by the government in secrecy? I think it's been safely demonstrated that this is not foolproof if you believe that searches without warrants violates the amendment that says searches are supposed to be conducted with warrants; FISA was simply ignored and nothing was really done about it.

There's also this example of why this is not such a good idea:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/060806Lindorff.shtml
There was a post created by Congress to oversee waste and corruption for mishandled Iraqi reconstruction funds. Bush made this position effectively useless by decreeing that the post could not oversee issues involving the Pentagon or threats to national security. Nothing was done about it. A program created by the government with the intention of oversight failed to accomplish its mission due to unknown interests of the ruling administration.

The free press is a great tool that helps keep the government honest, no doubt about it.
But the press should stay out of "covert" land, because I don't feel they're qualified to know when it's safe disclose classified information. They don't know the full set of ramifications of such a disclosure, and they shouldn't need to.
How can the free press keep a government honest if the free press is unable to report on classifed abuses and the government decides to classify all possible abuses?

The press should be the VERY last resort in these cases. Sometimes they might be right, but there should be other channels that things go through first before classified information is seemingly hastily disclosed (like it has been over the last 6 months or so).
What are the proper channels? Do you believe Deepthroat should have gone through these proper channels before divulging information to the press?

Suppose the press publishes an article that they know contains classified information, but they print it because they think it might be an abuse. But what if it turns out that our lawmakers and the public agree that it's not an abuse -- then what? What good does that serve? I don't want to run that risk.
I would rather run that risk rather than having a government confident that it can classify government actions at a record rate in order to protect itself from accountability.

[Sinmanc]

Why is flag burning such a big problem in this country anyways? christ the damn things are made in China, Malaysia, Mexico you get the picture. I remember in grade school we were taught that the American flag stood for the FREE republic of America. We had alot more personal rights when that flag was raised on our nations capital than we do now.

New York Times leak? what of it? As far as I remember we already monitor then freeze accounts of known terrorist and those affiliated. I want to say it's been mentioned on more than one occasion by this administration. But now that the times actually writes on the subject "oh now it's Taboo"

Seriously Who hates us more for our freedoms. The terrorrist who have attaked american soil 2 times in the last 20 yrs or our federal government who constantly attempts/adds restraints to our freedoms for OUR protection?

[dook]

press should be prasied for their reporting, not hounded. if the government is secretly monitoring bank activity and phone calls i want to know.

flag burning amendment is just stupid.

[schtoofa]

press should be prasied for their reporting, not hounded. if the government is secretly monitoring bank activity and phone calls i want to know.

flag burning amendment is just stupid.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the press :( Re: this stuff they should be scolded, not praised / rewarded. about the flag burning amendment, I guess I'm undecided.

Mechanisms ran by and set up by the government in secrecy? I think it's been safely demonstrated that this is not foolproof if you believe that searches without warrants violates the amendment that says searches are supposed to be conducted with warrants; FISA was simply ignored and nothing was really done about it.

I didn't say that the current non-press mechanisms are perfect, but I said that there should be some put into place. I personally don't know what they are, but I would think some smart people out there can come up with some (that haven't proven to fail time and again).

How can the free press keep a government honest if the free press is unable to report on classifed abuses and the government decides to classify all possible abuses?

I can't imagine you think the latter portion of your question is reasonable. IMO it's very extreme and unrealistic right now. Plus, we have no shortage of unclassified abuses going on :D All you have to do is watch the news for a half hour or flip through a newspaper and you'll get your day's worth. If we started to move in that direction (all abuses = classified), maybe I'd be more concerned. The programs that are classified and have been recently revealed in the media are not shocking to me, I don't think they're abuses, and I understand and agree with the government that the secret programs should not have been divulged. So right now I trust their judgment. Maybe this is where we disagree.

But, hey, at least if some horrific, unreasonably classified abuses things started happening, and even if the press couldn't print them then the leakers could spread the word. Then we could collect our guns and build our own well regulated militia to take out the wrongdoers ;-)

What are the proper channels? Do you believe Deepthroat should have gone through these proper channels before divulging information to the press?

Well, hang on a sec. I said that there should be other channels for reporting abuses -- I didn't say that there are some or that I knew of them. It's one of those wish list items of things that may not be in place but I wish they were, because it'd be better than having the press be the channel.


I would rather run that risk rather than having a government confident that it can classify government actions at a record rate in order to protect itself from accountability.

I guess we're just two different people, then.

While we're here, what are your thoughts on classifying data in general? For example, do you think that no data should ever be classified (because there might be abuses?)? Should all Americans be able to have access to everything that the government knows?

If you think the press can print anything that's classified, then to me it seems you are suggesting that there is no reason to classify anything, and all Americans should be aware of anything they want to be aware of (regardless of the impact on national security).

[Obscure]

John Murtha even argued with the NYT editors against publishing this. They screwed up. State secrets are not supposed to be published on the front page of a newspaper.

[Zogo]

They do not have a duty to research and disclose secret programs.

no news agency has a DUTY to write about any specific type of news..but they can if they want.

These people who publish "secret" information know that it's secret information. They are breaking the law and deserve to be put in prison.

why should gov't be allowed to hide information?

If the law I posted were unconstitutional, I'd find it hard to believe that over half a century later, it's still law.

not if you're dealing with a bunch of corrupt lunatics.

Where's the check/balance on the NY Times?

the NY times isn't a gov't entity so it's a lot less power compared to the gov't. anyway other news organizations could be considered a check.

[Kartikeya-OD]

The NY Times and related stories are a bunch of crap. Just another example of this world being driven by greed and/or people with fat heads. They do not have a duty to research and disclose secret programs. But, it's what sells in the media these days. Anytime something comes out like this, it's all over for a while and ends up wasting so much of everyone's time.

Oh, btw,
* United States Code
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
+ PART I - CRIMES
# CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Read section 793.*



These people who publish "secret" information know that it's secret information. They are breaking the law and deserve to be put in prison.



* reference: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793

Winner. We already have a body of individuals who are suppose to keep our Government’s programs in check. I'll give you a hint, you had to vote these individuals into their positions...

Oh how fast we have forgotten Rockfella's mess up with the original leak. Wait I wasn't in that meeting! Time to go write a quick letter acting like I already knew about the program and had objections since it's been reported on doh!

John Murtha even argued with the NYT editors against publishing this. They screwed up. State secrets are not supposed to be published on the front page of a newspaper.

How dare you point this out!

[EverythingZen]

I got about half a page down and was so frustrated with the thick headed responses supplied by some of you people. Are you honestly willing to just give up your rights so passively? Are you honestly thinking that passing a anti-flag burning amendment will only effect 4 or 5 people (obvious sarcasm)? Guaranteed that if something like this was passed that there would be flag burnings all over the nation in public demonstrations.

[schtoofa]

why should gov't be allowed to hide information?

If the government deems it necessary in order to provide for the common defense of the people (like they're supposed to do according to the Preamble), then why not?

not if you're dealing with a bunch of corrupt lunatics.

lol.

the NY times isn't a gov't entity so it's a lot less power compared to the gov't. anyway other news organizations could be considered a check.

What I was getting at is that the NY times is in no way qualified to decide whether classified information ought to be revealed to the public. In fact, no news organization is qualified to do make that decision, so other news organizations cannot be considered a check in this context. Once the info is out, it's out.

[hawk]

What I was getting at is that the NY times is in no way qualified to decide whether classified information ought to be revealed to the public. In fact, no news organization is qualified to do make that decision, so other news organizations cannot be considered a check in this context. Once the info is out, it's out.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like this. If the government is doing something illegal, but it's classified, then papers would have ever right to publish this information. We as citizens must be part of the checks on our government, the media is part of that. In this case, I just don't see it as a big deal.

[stas]

why should gov't be allowed to hide information?


is this a serious question or are you joking?

[Fuzzy Texas Ranger]

Why are people trying to make this whole New york times thing so complicated? It pretty black and white...

Yes, most of the information was slightly public already but you're not suppose to blast DETAILED information across the world, I don't care who you are. It was wrong for the New york times to publish what they did but more wrong for the leakers to leak. Bush needs to throw them in court and then toss the reports in jail when they don't tell us who the leakers are... of course that won't ever happen.. just think of all the flames bush would get from his haters.. seriously.. it would be worse than the cesspool.

its an ethical thing.. you can't make people do the right things all the time.

[schtoofa]

is this a serious question or are you joking?

haha, I wondered that myself. ^ 5.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like this. If the government is doing something illegal, but it's classified, then papers would have ever right to publish this information. We as citizens must be part of the checks on our government, the media is part of that. In this case, I just don't see it as a big deal.

I understand what you're saying, and that's exactly why I think this is a tricky situation that requires a better, more "internal" system of checks and balances that can be used for reporting of abuses.

Again, though, it's not up to the newspapers to decide what's legal/illegal when choosing whether to publish a story. I'm sure you know this, but that responsibility rests on the judicial branch. The media is just one of many checks we have on our government. I just think sometimes they go too far, at the expense of national security.

[VeeKaChu]

I wish with all my heart that the administration will press charges against the NYT.

[ass*assassin]

I wish with all my heart that the administration will press charges against the NYT.

absolutely. these guys went way over the line. it's time for major fines and prison time.. they need to find out who leaked it and press treason charges on them too.. regardless as to who is the culprit..

[dys]

To keep my reply short, see everything schtoofa said.

I don't think the press should have the ability to decide what does or does not stay classified. Perhaps they should check with an independent, anonymous panel before publishing. Lawyers of the press vs lawyers of the government, neither of which could ever disclose their status on the panel nor run for a seat in congress.

Originally Posted by Zogo
why should gov't be allowed to hide information?
Nearly went over backwards in my chair..

[Ignatz]

This is obviously a much trickier issue than either side really wants to admit.

You can't have the press directly endangering the lives of servicemen or undermining military operations when failure means lives lost or prolonging conflicts in which more lives are lost.

However, if you give ANY government (and especially this one) the power to classify anything they feel is related to national security, you're handing over the keys to your freedom, plain and simple. Even schtoofa and assassin must see the truth in that.

I like dys' idea of an independent tribunal, as long as it's guaranteed to not be dedicated to either side. Maybe let the administration appoint some members, the opposing party appoint some, and the media appoint some.

If you think the press can print anything that's classified, then to me it seems you are suggesting that there is no reason to classify anything, and all Americans should be aware of anything they want to be aware of (regardless of the impact on national security).

Please realize that ANY time the government is allowed to withhold or classify information, a chunk is taken out of our freedom. If you want to assert that this loss is worth it in the name of security, I would listen to that argument, but never forget that it IS a loss. Not a single speck of our freedom should EVER EVER be sacrificed or thrown away lightly, or without extreme concern for the integrity of those it is handed over to, even when it is handed over willingly and gladly. I certainly do suggest that Americans should be aware of anything they desire about our country EXCEPT ONLY in the most dire necessity, and that necessity in itself should be subjected to the most stringent of examinations. You act as though our government is an agency to be implicity trusted with any measure of power. That is not the case. No government is deserving of that trust or capable of that degree of integrity. This is the whole purpose of democracy.

[ass*assassin]

^^^^^^

in regards to the above.. no, the administration has not been handed a 'carte blanche' get out of jail free card in regards to classifying anything it damned well pleases.. as a matter of fact, the armed forces in particular have been cutting back the number and quality of clearances required by active duty and civilian contractors.. thus, the paperwork is supposed to be lower, i.e., a cost-cutting initiative..

now, in regards to 'wholesale classification' and the handing over of the keys.. there are several checks and balances in place for much of what is and has been going on..

the house sub-committee on intelligence
the senate committee on intelligence..
the supreme court - which, btw today ruled against the bush administration in regards to its' handling of 10 of the prisoners in gitmo..

again, when a program of this magnitude is put into place, the house and the senate sub-committees are fully congnizant and give full approval of these programs ahead of time.. they are the oversight.. they are also BI-PARTISAN..

how a program like this get's started is simple..

1. some smart guy says, "let's track the bad guys money" and figures out a way to do it..
2. the fbi, the nsa or some contractor then works out the details on how to accomplish this..
3. they go in front of the house and senate sub-committees for funding and approval. at the same time, the president and maybe the cia, fbi and in this case, treasury dept, would be brought in too, since they didn't want their guys accidently blowing the op.. very few of these things are totally 'black ops' where they would not be approved, reviewed and funding in this manner.. very few..
4. once approved by the committees, funding would be put in place and the actual implementation would begin..

so again, there is not just one person responsible for a program of this magnitude to get it's start, or to be approved.. final approval does go with the president, in this case.. but, that is once it goes up the feeding chain to him..

[hawk]

Maybe Bush too should be charged for his 2001 comment: "follow the money as a trail to the terrorists." Clearly, he's disclosing the government secret of monitoring terrorist funds. As the statement shows, this report wasn't a some huge revelation, and I don't see how you can bring charges up on it. Other things sure, not this.

[schtoofa]

I wish with all my heart that the administration will press charges against the NYT.

Probably for different reasons than some of the others in this thread. I imagine you want this to happen because then the Democrats would constantly tag the Bush administration as being an anti-free-speech police state, so it could be used against the Republicans in the upcoming elections. Different motivations, I suppose :) The dems really need some big political push right now to gain more seats, since there seem to have been some positive developments lately for the Bush administration (death of Zarqawi, unity govt completely forming in Iraq, lots of international cooperation for diplomacy re: NK and Iran, decent economy, etc.). I think that politically, the dems may have peaked their popularity prematurely with respect to elections. Dunno, we'll see how things pan out.

However, if you give ANY government (and especially this one) the power to classify anything they feel is related to national security, you're handing over the keys to your freedom, plain and simple. Even schtoofa and assassin must see the truth in that.

...

Please realize that ANY time the government is allowed to withhold or classify information, a chunk is taken out of our freedom. If you want to assert that this loss is worth it in the name of security, I would listen to that argument, but never forget that it IS a loss. Not a single speck of our freedom should EVER EVER be sacrificed or thrown away lightly, or without extreme concern for the integrity of those it is handed over to, even when it is handed over willingly and gladly. I certainly do suggest that Americans should be aware of anything they desire about our country EXCEPT ONLY in the most dire necessity, and that necessity in itself should be subjected to the most stringent of examinations. You act as though our government is an agency to be implicity trusted with any measure of power. That is not the case. No government is deserving of that trust or capable of that degree of integrity. This is the whole purpose of democracy.

You're right, I agree. The question is do you trust them to make the right choices? We need to keep the right people in office, have the right oversight, and have the right checks and balances in order to make this stuff work. In any republic like our own, there has to be some balance of trust and lack of trust in order to maintain a stable society and to keep the government reasonably honest. For example, we trust that the government won't let Iran fly their jets over and bomb New York. In order to live up to that trust/expectation, the government probably has to classify some information about how we could stop such a thing (so that the Iranians won't know how to counter our counter, and so forth).

There's always going to be a fine line somewhere, and constant checks and balances are needed. I just don't think the way the leakers and press have gone about this lately is the right way to do it. I would think a sort of streamlined independent FISA court and whistleblower policy would do the trick, but who knows.

hawk: I haven't seen any statements on what exactly is classified from that story. Is it the program's existence? Is it the underlying details? Is it that SWIFT played a role? I honestly don't know, and haven't seen any statements on this. But that aside (and maybe ass* can confirm?), I believe that the President has declassification authority (whereas the NY Times most certainly does not). When we elect the head of the executive branch, we trust that said leader will make the right choices about what is safe to declassify.

[hawk]

Schtoofa: I find a little ironic that earlier in the thread you were strongly calling for prosecuting these individuals, now you're asking what they even did wrong. That seems a little backwards. All I've heard about the legality from the "right" is that it is making it easier for terrorists because now they know about the monitoring. My point with the Bush comment was that it was common knowledge, Bush said it himself. How do you prosecute someone for confirming some information that was already out there?

[Ignatz]

The press is most definitely an established "check and balance" in our society. It may not be codified like the three branches of government, but even the founders of our country knew that it is just as important as any one of those. Is it, in turn, subject to checks and balances on its own power? Of course.

However, I don't think that it's responsible or honest to say that the NYT is simply giving up secret information to sell papers or because they hate the President. I think the issue of spying on the communications and finances of Americans in the name of hunting terrorists is a very gray area. I don't think that qualifies as straight-up betraying military secrets for no good reason.

[ass*assassin]

I think the issue of spying on the communications and finances of Americans in the name of hunting terrorists is a very gray area. I don't think that qualifies as straight-up betraying military secrets for no good reason.

your assertation is wrong here.. they are not spying on americans in the strictest sense of the word and specifically.. they are scanning, electronically, certain transaction types that have been used in the past to forward money back and forth from those with the money, to those that need the money in the field.. consequently, they have to scan all the records to see what comes under the 'hit list' that they established for the record to be electronically pushed up to the next level for review.. that review is usually a human scan to see if it meets the requirements for further review/observation..

we used this very means in the 80's and early 90's to monitor and find out who the members were of the south american/peruvian/columbian connections in regards to the cocaine wars down there.. it's simple.. follow the money trail. the money never lies.. whether its drugs, street crime or terrorism.. follow the money.. we monitored the bank records, electronically, of all the off-shore and panamanian banks, and anyone that popped with a lot of money that they couldn't explain, immediately went on a 'suspect' list for further human review.. we caught up with a lot of the actual money people that way, that were financing the whole shebang..

[Ignatz]

I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what is being done or that I have the answer if the NYT was out of line in this particular case or not. You obviously know more than I about the specifics.

I was talking more about generalities, but I do still believe that an organization like the NYT takes decisions about publishing things like this seriously and not for totally selfish or trivial reasons. Now, if you have proof otherwise, then my opinion would change, just like I'm sure your opinion would change if someone brought forth proof that the administration used these information-gathering techniques for purposes other than simply tracking terrorists. At least I'd hope that people on both sides of these arguments could be capable of being open-minded.

[schtoofa]

Schtoofa: I find a little ironic that earlier in the thread you were strongly calling for prosecuting these individuals, now you're asking what they even did wrong. That seems a little backwards. All I've heard about the legality from the "right" is that it is making it easier for terrorists because now they know about the monitoring. My point with the Bush comment was that it was common knowledge, Bush said it himself. How do you prosecute someone for confirming some information that was already out there?

Hang on a sec. I'm talking about the topic of freedom of speech/the press in relation to the recent publishing of what appears to be classified information. As examples, I'm grouping together the three major related stories that were published over the last ~6 months, i.e., "domestic eavesdropping," "datamining phone records," and "monitoring financial transactions." I think none of those stories should have been published, and anyone involved in leaking or publishing classified information in regards to those stories should have charges pressed against them. I stand by that, unless someone sends me information that convinces me otherwise.

Onto the most recent one, I honestly don't know what about the report specifically was classified information. Have you seen it anywhere? If so, point me there and I'll be happy to check it out. The articles I read used terms like "secret program," etc., to describe it so I'm assuming it's classified and that the authors / publishers believed it to be classified. I was just calling you out on that there's no reason to prosecute Bush for the statement you quoted from 2001.

To answer your question directly, though, if any of the details they give away to confirm something that was already out there happen to be classified (especially if they know that it's classified!) then they are at fault.

[hawk]

I was being facetious with the comment about Bush being charged. It was more to point out that this information was already out there, even the president said it. That's why I don't see this as being a big deal at all. Certainly not worthy of talks about treason or even charges. It's funny how similar this is to the plame situation and how differently the pundits are treating it.

[Moniker]

If we rely on the press, especially in its current form, to be the people's check on the government, we are absolutely fucked. The press only cares about making money, they don't care if what they report on is top secret or not. They have no interest in exposing government cover-ups or whatever unless it builds up their profit.

And finally, who is a check on the press? It's not other press corporations because everyone's bottom line is to make money. Those that don't are quickly rubbed out of the business. What happens if the government needs to be checked, but it's a boring, useless story so it doesn't go reported (happens all the time). Wow, what a great check! Or better yet, what if the press' profit motive ultimately leads to the status of being a false prophet, manipulating the truth, and ultimately the people? Then it's no better than government propaganda, but at least people know not to trust government-issued propaganda.

I can't believe you people put so much stock into the media.

[SithDrummer]

why should gov't be allowed to hide information?
Because the government, in addition to governing and serving its citizens, is also tasked with defending them. The same members of government that deal with legal and civil duties are also intimately involved with certain defensive measures and military operations, the success of which could be lessened or outright thwarted due to pertinent information getting into the wrong hands at an inopportune moment.

Oh, and sigged.

[Zogo]

reading this thread...I realize how countries like china and north korea come into existence.

How dare you point this out!

random fat politician makes a stupid statement and we're compelled to agree with it?

If the government deems it necessary in order to provide for the common defense of the people (like they're supposed to do according to the Preamble), then why not?

where do you draw the line? IMO, in order to defend myself I'd like all the info on MY table (I realize I'm in the minority here and many like the nanny-state) it's just as time goes on I get tired of the corruption year after year..all the lies that come out..I also think about all the lies that don't come out.

lol.

yes, the supreme court is infalible and no one here disagrees with them. it's odd that republicans use the supreme court to defend their crazy rights abuses..and then in some other section of their brain they can criticize them for permitting abortion and other things they don't like. if we're going by "time = credence" how many more years is it till abortion is set in stone forever?

What I was getting at is that the NY times is in no way qualified to decide whether classified information ought to be revealed to the public. In fact, no news organization is qualified to do make that decision, so other news organizations cannot be considered a check in this context. Once the info is out, it's out.

basically the gov't should run the press is what you're saying?

is this a serious question or are you joking?

serious, I want to see peoples reasoning behind their beliefs.

[Zogo]

I wish with all my heart that the administration will press charges against the NYT.

oh definitely...death by firing squad..and then we can dance around the fire like wild injuns and torch the remants of the constitution. it'll be glorious!

Nearly went over backwards in my chair..

still waiting for an answer..

And finally, who is a check on the press?

other news agencies. and news agencies in other countries.

Because the government, in addition to governing and serving its citizens, is also tasked with defending them. The same members of government that deal with legal and civil duties are also intimately involved with certain defensive measures and military operations, the success of which could be lessened or outright thwarted due to pertinent information getting into the wrong hands at an inopportune moment.

how do you distinguish between info that should be shared and unshared with the citizenry?

also, does a citizen have the right to hide information from the gov't?

[Moniker]

other news agencies. and news agencies in other countries. Hey, don't bother, like, reading the rest of the paragraph or anything. We wouldn't want you overstressing that powerful analytical mind of yours.

[schtoofa]

reading this thread...I realize how countries like china and north korea come into existence.

So you're saying that because we can freely talk about these issues and express our points of view on this without fear of government retaliation, that the USA is at risk of becoming a communist state?

random fat politician makes a stupid statement and we're compelled to agree with it?

Random fat journalist writes a story that deliberately undermines our national security, and I'm supposed to agree with what s/he did?

where do you draw the line? IMO, in order to defend myself I'd like all the info on MY table (I realize I'm in the minority here and many like the nanny-state) it's just as time goes on I get tired of the corruption year after year..all the lies that come out..I also think about all the lies that don't come out.

Defend yourself from what? Are you admitting that you're paranoid that the big bad government is going to start imprisoning or killing everyone, especially you?

yes, the supreme court is infalible and no one here disagrees with them. it's odd that republicans use the supreme court to defend their crazy rights abuses..and then in some other section of their brain they can criticize them for permitting abortion and other things they don't like. if we're going by "time = credence" how many more years is it till abortion is set in stone forever?

are you saying that since it's not perfect, the judicial branch should be replaced with something else that's more effective, or even or done away with?

basically the gov't should run the press is what you're saying?

Way to completely miss the point. I'm saying that publishers and journalists should use their heads sometimes. Are you saying you'd purposefully reveal classified information to the public, even if you don't know the true (and possibly horrific) implications to fellow Americans?

[mulisha]

How hard is it to realize that all Schtoofa is promoting is responsible journalism? You know that used to exist right?

[schtoofa]

Oh, and in other news:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-30-nsa_x.htm

But some lawmakers also say that cooperation by the nation's telecommunication companies was not as extensive as first reported by USA TODAY on May 11.

Gadzooks, imagine that. The media appears to have falsely implicated some very large telephone companies. At least it was a good story and sold some papers!

[ass*assassin]

ah.. responsible journalism..

what a nice little name.. yes, that is what this whole thing is about.. we enjoy a fairly free society, freer than just about anyone else on this planet.. you can pretty much do and say what you want, so long as you don't piss on someone elses' wheaties.. that is what we are all about..

free and responsible journalism is an important part of our society. however, when they ( the journalistic empire ) starts to get into areas that it should not delve into, then we have a problem, such as in this case.

you have the right, under the consititution to say whatever it is you want to say.. however, if you slander or injure another party, due to your irresponsibility, you are likely to be sued under the laws of this country, or possibly be jailed if you violated some other areas of the us laws, such as the treason laws, or other rather small and insignificant little areas of our government .. (snicker) it's a double-edged sword.. in my opinion, these guys went over the edge, and they deserve to be smacked down according to the laws of the land. end of story.

[Fuzzy Texas Ranger]

It's one thing to say something about like.. pollution or abortion.. informing the masses of something they overlooked, but to fucking talk in DETAIL about classified information is wrong. Don't be stupid.

[Zogo]

So you're saying that because we can freely talk about these issues and express our points of view on this without fear of government retaliation, that the USA is at risk of becoming a communist state?

are you referring to this thread or the newspaper? what I was saying was that the more power you give the gov't to regulate speech the more totalitarian the country becomes. not necessarily communistic, but communist governments generally like to control everything to hide the evils/shortcomings they invariably have to cover up.

Random fat journalist writes a story that deliberately undermines our national security, and I'm supposed to agree with what s/he did?

no, you don't have to agree with it..but we shouldn't be squelching the press.
if you don't want to read it or don't like to read it no one is forcing you to. you can even run a boycott against the business if you're that offended.

Defend yourself from what? Are you admitting that you're paranoid that the big bad government is going to start imprisoning or killing everyone, especially you?

defend and prepare for incoming attacks on the country. yes, I don't think I have to admit that based on previous posts heh..and so were our founding fathers.

are you saying that since it's not perfect, the judicial branch should be replaced with something else that's more effective, or even or done away with?

no, I'm saying that people shouldn't use a supreme court ruling as a defense of their stance on one position and then lambast them when they disagree with another ruling.

Are you saying you'd purposefully reveal classified information to the public, even if you don't know the true (and possibly horrific) implications to fellow Americans?

it would probably depend on the situation. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable hiding some politicians dirty work.
the question is kind of a false dilemma..if the paper releases the info what horrific things are guaranteed to happen?

[Zogo]

Hey, don't bother, like, reading the rest of the paragraph or anything. We wouldn't want you overstressing that powerful analytical mind of yours.

not all purveyors of news are in it for profit. sometimes a lot more info can be gleaned from a news agency from an outside source that isn't as tied to the politicians and power elite in the home country.

How hard is it to realize that all Schtoofa is promoting is responsible journalism? You know that used to exist right?

"responsible journalimsm" seems to be going more towards..don't publish anything the politicians don't like or you'll be in trouble.

but to fucking talk in DETAIL about classified information is wrong. Don't be stupid.

why?

[Moniker]

not all purveyors of news are in it for profit. sometimes a lot more info can be gleaned from a news agency from an outside source that isn't as tied to the politicians and power elite in the home country. But the vast, vast majority of the public don't care about that newsmedia. They only care about cable TV news, big-time newspapers, and their local news, all of which are in it for the money. So, try again.

Edit: I just realized that this is yet another one of those threads where we all just take turns making zogo look stupid, but zogo is too stupid to realize it and keeps arguing, so I'm going to stop replying to him. I encourage others to do the same.

Save the Academy!

[Kartikeya-OD]

Moniker I beat you to that a long time ago. :)

[Terminotaur]

If the media has no scruples as you say and is only concerned with capitalistic motivations, why did the NY Times sit on the NSA surveillance story for an entire year before releasing it and why did they converse with the Bush administration during this time period?

The editor has claimed that they conversed with the Bush administration regarding this particular bank story and were dissatisfied with the answers of the Bush administration.

There is the danger of a lack of checks and balances on the press in publishing information and the possibility of undermining national security. This danger is a small price to pay for the alternative of a government that controls everything the public knows.

[schtoofa]

If the media has no scruples as you say and is only concerned with capitalistic motivations, why did the NY Times sit on the NSA surveillance story for an entire year before releasing it and why did they converse with the Bush administration during this time period?

The editor has claimed that they conversed with the Bush administration regarding this particular bank story and were dissatisfied with the answers of the Bush administration.

There is the danger of a lack of checks and balances on the press in publishing information and the possibility of undermining national security. This danger is a small price to pay for the alternative of a government that controls everything the public knows.

We can only speculate as to why they were in talks for a year (or whatever length of time), but about these sorts of stories -- it's government policy not to confirm or deny details regarding any alleged secret program, whether the program is real or not. This makes sense, because if they deny details on some and say "oh, we can't talk about that" regarding others then you can easily make an intuitive leap.

My guess is that the NY Times sought more in depth reasons to explain how divulging the program would compromise national security. I imagine that in order to answer that question, the government would have had to reveal classified information to someone who didn't have the proper clearance and need to know. And so the NY Times went on with it anyway.

A guess is all it is, though.

[Zogo]

But the vast, vast majority of the public don't care about that newsmedia. They only care about cable TV news, big-time newspapers, and their local news, all of which are in it for the money.

true, I never said it was a perfect check (there is no such thing.) one check that the giant medias have on each other is that they'll lambast another paper/channel for publishing erroneous information. what we have here is a lot better than in NK/china et al.

So, try again.

I already disproved your point..it sounds like you need to try again.

We can only speculate as to why they were in talks for a year (or whatever length of time), but about these sorts of stories

lol? did you forget the story about bush calling head newspeople into the oval office and threatening them not to publish certain stories he didn't like?

[schtoofa]

lol? did you forget the story about bush calling head newspeople into the oval office and threatening them not to publish certain stories he didn't like?

Actually I didn't hear about that, but it wouldn't surprise me (though I figure your recollection of it is overdramatic).

In this case, if I were the President, I wouldn't want them to publish this story either. :eek: I figure that's not a big surprise to you, since I've already mentioned that I don't support publishing of classified information.

[Zogo]

Actually I didn't hear about that, but it wouldn't surprise me (though I figure your recollection of it is overdramatic).

he called in a few of the head guys.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

[schtoofa]

that article says that the Times didn't comment on the meeting. Got anything else where they talk about what went on there? Just curious :D

[Zogo]

that article says that the Times didn't comment on the meeting. Got anything else where they talk about what went on there? Just curious :D

"...a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story."

NYT probably didn't want to go into detail because it would be an admission that they agreed to bush's demand not to publish the story (which would upset liberals.)

[xero]

I only have two things to say (disclaimer: I haven't read the thread before posting, nor will I after -- these types of threads bring out the idiots in everyone).

1) Dissent is patriotic. That's how this country came to be, remember? No form of speech of any kind, no matter how offensive, should ever be banned in the US Constitution or the constitutions of the states. Obviously, this includes the absolutely insane flag burning amendment, which is the very definition of a "wedge issue," along with gay marriage and abortion.

2) There is nothing wrong with the press leaking the finance-tracking story. Nothing. The first thing the administration said (even before they claimed it was "disgraceful" and all that other bullshit), was that the program was legal by US and international standards. If it's legal by those standards, the who cares if the press reports it? Unlike issue one, however, these things really do have a gray area, and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's perfectly acceptable.

[Moniker]

I only have two things to say (disclaimer: I haven't read the thread before posting, nor will I after -- these types of threads bring out the idiots in everyone). Wow, nice way to preface a post -- "I don't care what anyone else says, but everyone should still listen to me anyway". And the idea that dissent being patriotic is ridiculous, because that would entail having to disagree with everything in order to be patriotic. Or, like an art some have perfected, disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.

True patriotism is standing up for what you want or believe in and reflecting it in legitimate government participation. Yes, that means agreeing with the government in some respects and disagreeing with others. If I want to abolish the constitution and instill a regime of cow rapists, I have that right. If I want to restrict the free speech of others because I think that's the best way society should be, I also have the right to aim towards that end.

America is about representative democracy, not free speech. Free speech is simply something that was a priority of the colonists at that the time of the creation of the Constitution. If the people want free speech, so be it, let them have free speech. If they don't, abolish it. The "tyranny of the majority" that people cry about is only prevented by the sympathy of the majority.

[larcain]

1) Dissent is patriotic. That's how this country came to be, remember? No form of speech of any kind, no matter how offensive, should ever be banned in the US Constitution or the constitutions of the states.


I think Chesterton has addressed this attitude.

But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.' (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909)

[schtoofa]

"...a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story."

NYT probably didn't want to go into detail because it would be an admission that they agreed to bush's demand not to publish the story (which would upset liberals.)

I don't doubt that Bush tried to get the NYTimes to not publish certain stories, but that article is clearly an opinion piece :o Given that, it's tough to take it very seriously.

xero: I disagree :( "If it's legal by those standards, the who cares if the press reports it?" A lot of people care. Just because a program is legal, that doesn't mean its details should be published with no regard to the classification of the details.

[Bookrat]

And the idea that dissent being patriotic is ridiculous, because that would entail having to disagree with everything in order to be patriotic.
Umm... sure.

"Exercise is healthy." "That's ridiculous! That would mean I'd have to do nothing but exercise in order to be healthy!"

"Sex is enjoyable." "That's ridiculous! That would entail having to have sex with everyone/everything in order to get any joy out of life."

Something can be true without it being the only truth there is.

True patriotism ... means agreeing with the government in some respects and disagreeing with others.
That's exactly what he's saying, and I'm sure you know it. The point is that the act of disagreeing with the government is not in and of itself an unpatriotic act (regardless of what the Patriot Act may say on the subject).

Come on, Moniker... I know you can debate better than that; I've seen you do it. There's no need to resort to ridiculous verbal tricks to try and win points.

Wow, nice way to preface a post -- "I don't care what anyone else says, but everyone should still listen to me anyway".
Can't argue much with this, though. Fine, great, don't read the rest of the thread... but why trumpet that out as a preface to what you say? The post would have been strengthened, not weakened, by the removal of the parenthetical statement.

[Zogo]

I don't doubt that Bush tried to get the NYTimes to not publish certain stories, but that article is clearly an opinion piece :o Given that, it's tough to take it very seriously.

are you saying they fabricated the story?

And the idea that dissent being patriotic is ridiculous, because that would entail having to disagree with everything in order to be patriotic.

no it wouldn't. it just means that dissenters shouldn't be branded as terrorist lovers.

If I want to abolish the constitution and instill a regime of cow rapists, I have that right.

lol, where is that right granted?

I think Chesterton has addressed this attitude.

where? all I read was a hilariously dated, rambling diatribe against skepticism 100 years ago.

[larcain]

I think Moniker had it right. It is a good idea to not get in an argument with the impaired.

[Terminotaur]

Although one might argue it's a semantic quibble, perhaps it would be more apt to say "to question the government is patriotic" rather than to say "dissent is patriotic." There are many cases where dissent (particularly the violent type) was not patriotic.

[schtoofa]

are you saying they fabricated the story?

Nope, but the writing is so obviously slanted.

e.g.,
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

And he knows this... how? Did he ask Bush? Did he obtain memos from Bush to someone else, where it was clear this was his intent? How about some recorded conversations? Nope -- none of those. He's not reporting the facts of a story; he's making his own judgments and assumptions, and writing them down as if they're fact. That's what makes it an opinion piece.

[Sutterkane]

People can burn the flag all they want, they'll never be able to burn away the love for my country.



Ok I'm done being poetic and gay and shit, sorry.

[Moniker]

That's exactly what he's saying, and I'm sure you know it. If that's what he meant to say, then he would have said it. If I beleive that exercise is healthy, I'm going to say exercise is healthy, not "running a quarter mile very week is healthy", because I'm leaving out the rest of the routine which is required to fulfill that truth.

Likewise, he's saying that dissent is patriotic, implying that agreement with the status quo, however, is not.

[Zogo]

Nope, but the writing is so obviously slanted.

yes, slanted towards saying that bush was only trying to protect himself.

but that wasn't the crucial aspect of the story..the part I was referencing was that bush did indeed call NYT people into his office (manipulation of the press.)

a lot can be inferred based on bush's stance itself and quotes from bush calling the NYT and others "shameful traitors." it's clear he has disdain for a free press.

[Cyberdemon]

I don't think the courts would find that the NYT leak poses an imminent threat to anyone in the same sense that publishing troop movements might, and executing Keller for treason is a bit of a stretch to begin with. Personally I don't mind them publishing the info because accountability isn't one of this administration's strong points.

The flag burning thing's always been an obvious "USA! USA! Rah Rah Rah American Values!" ploy and was never a good idea.