Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[mrhnau]

Found this today ...



That would Congressional Representative Peter King.

Anyone want to send him a copy of the First Amendment.

Dude, lets just sell nuclear secrets to Iran. Lets give them floor plans for our bases, training procedures for our military, tell them exactly how to kill us. Hey, we can stand on the First Admendment. weeee!!

 

[michaeledward]

Dude, lets just sell nuclear secrets to Iran. Lets give them floor plans for our bases, training procedures for our military, tell them exactly how to kill us. Hey, we can stand on the First Admendment. weeee!!

mrhnau .... I don't understand?

Are you ridiculing me?

Are you ridiculing the Free Press?

Are you ridiculing the Constitution?

 

[mrhnau]

mrhnau .... I don't understand?

Are you ridiculing me?

Are you ridiculing the Free Press?

Are you ridiculing the Constitution?

Free speech is not a carte blanche to sell our secrets, to undermine our security or to put at risk our nation. Anyone that believes the 1st admendment says that needs some help. Informing the enemy of secrets, of classified information has a term. Its called treason. Every nation has secrets of some form. Most of them are practical. For instance, the plans for specific war technology. Suppose someone sneaks into a base and steals plans for a nuke. They disseminate them online. Do I particularly care if its a Chinese national or the NYT? Regardless, its a national secret thats been stolen. I consider that treason, and I'd be suprised if the law did say otherwise.

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic, but I simply can not understand the assumption that the press gets a free ticket to do things and say things no human on earth should be doing simply because they are the press.

Here is an exercise. Go stand in Time Square and start shouting that you are going to assassinate the president. See what happens. Claim free speech when they throw you in prison. Or perhaps go slander someone famous repeatedly. Or purjer yourself about something important. Yes, we have the right to free speech, but there are reasonable limitations, and they apply to the press too, IMHO.

 

[michaeledward]

The New York Times has disclosed that the Administration is breaking the law.

You can not listen into citizens telephone conversations without a warrant approved by the Courts. You can not monitor financial transactions without a warrant approved by the Courts.

If the Government feels it must take the actions it has taken, there are policies in place to allow them to do so legally.

A Free Press will balance the responsibilities of running a news organization with the responsibilities of the nation. This has been shown in times past.

From your argument, the Government can take any illegal activity it chooses and mark the program as 'classified' to escape responsibility. That way lies trading Arms for Hostages, as I'm sure you will recall.

So, I guess it comes down to: whom do you trust more, the People or the Administration?

 

[mrhnau]

The New York Times has disclosed that the Administration is breaking the law.

You can not listen into citizens telephone conversations without a warrant approved by the Courts. You can not monitor financial transactions without a warrant approved by the Courts.

If the Government feels it must take the actions it has taken, there are policies in place to allow them to do so legally.

A Free Press will balance the responsibilities of running a news organization with the responsibilities of the nation. This has been shown in times past.

From your argument, the Government can take any illegal activity it chooses and mark the program as 'classified' to escape responsibility. That way lies trading Arms for Hostages, as I'm sure you will recall.

So, I guess it comes down to: whom do you trust more, the People or the Administration?

From your arguement, the press gets to pick and choose which secret documents it thinks are ok. correct?

I think the last question would be more appropriately phrased: whom do you trust more, the Press or the Administration. The Press are not "the people" as you seem to assert.

The press has two motives. Selling papers/advertising and reporting news.
The Administration has two motives. Running the country and getting reelected.

Selling papers/advertising and reporting news (generally w/ your personal slant on it) does not make you an expert in running the country. Running the country and trying to get elected does not make you an expert in reporting news.

News agencies are not responsible for the possible damage caused by their leaking of information. Its a mess the government has to clean up. I'm not totally informed of the issue at hand, and I'll admit that, however there needs to be limitations on what the press can report in order to protect national interests. Is this such a case? I'm not sure, which is why I stipulated an obvious situation in my posts: Nuclear technology. If the issue is about phone calls, thats been brought up before. Its nothing new now.

On that topic, I could easily see, if it were leaked by NYT, how it could be considered treasonous. You are informing the enemy of how we are surveiling them. I could clearly see why the government would want that secret.

 

[michaeledward]

You are correct ... The Press ... does not equal ... The People.

Without a Free and Independent Press to provide information to the People, the People can not make informed consent about being governed. That is why the First Amendment to the Constitution was created. This is basic civics.

When the government is monitoring the phone conversations of reporters, without warrants, on the off chance they might discover a leaker .... something is horribly wrong in THIS country. That is not the way we were raised.

If you wish to prosecute someone for Treason, prosecute the person who leaked classified information, you know, like Karl Rove.

 

[mrhnau]

I assume you are discussing this:
Bush slams leak of terror finance story


Here are some nifty quotes:

Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

"Certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live," Snow said.

Keller said the administration also argued "in a halfhearted way" that disclosure of the program "would lead terrorists to change tactics."

I love the Snow quite. Right on the money.

 

[heretic888]

I love the Snow quite. Right on the money.

I prefer Benjamin Franklin myself:

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither."

Laterz.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Overused, simplistic, misunderstood and applied too often as a "touche" in discussions about national security. Most who use it will be bewailing the ineptitude of our intelligence/defense organizations the next time a 9/11 happens.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/stratton-security.html

This is not the first time the U.S. has suspended such rights, said O'Neil. In 1862 during the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus--the right of prisoners to determine the legality of their imprisonment. At the time, no one dared speak out. In 1944, Roosevelt sent many Japanese Americans to internment camps. Again, few citizens spoke out against the action.

For O'Neil, the stark contrast between citizens' reactions then and now is comforting. "Already, our courts have interfered to a degree that is unprecedented," said O'Neil, referring to the Supreme Court decision last summer to allow prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to fight their imprisonment. "The best lessons of history teach us what to avoid and what we might do better."

McCarthy worries that being reactive instead of proactive again will lead to more trouble. "It is simply not adequate to face it as a law enforcement problem. We have to have a holistic approach," he said. "A lot of what has been done has to be done if we are to be safe."

Kayyem agreed that suspension of certain rights was "likely necessary at times," but said she also believes that this threat is very different. Kayyem's concern is lack of clarity. "We are making this stuff up as we go along," she said. "We are still treading water. There is no start or finish, no mission accomplished."

While all agreed there are no easy answers and positive arguments could be made on both sides, McCarthy assured the audience that he believes everything possible is being done to preserve freedom in this country. "People in the government hear your concerns about civil liberties," he said.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/070802_security.html

On one matter there seems to be general agreement--September 11 changed everything. The United States has been attacked at home. The danger is ever present. The enemy is within.

But in fact the United States has had to deal with situations much like this one ever since its founding. In the late 1790s the fledgling American republic faced a mortal threat from France, which had launched an undeclared war at sea. In that climate, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, designed to make life difficult for French immigrants and for Adams's great rival, Thomas Jefferson, and his followers, whose pro-French views seemed treasonous in a time of crisis. These acts, parts of which were plainly unconstitutional, paled in comparison to what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War. Worried about Confederate saboteurs, Lincoln repeatedly suspended the right of due process. "Lincoln's attitude was, if anyone gives you trouble, arrest him and throw him into jail. It's that simple," says Civil War historian Shelby Foote. Or consider the Red Scare of 1919, which began with a series of terrorist bombings. In June 1919 senior government officials started receiving package bombs. By 1920 more bombs had damaged the facades of the New York Stock Exchange and the Morgan bank. The Justice Department's investigation, headed by the 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover, capitalized on public fears. It arrested 4,000 people, broke up communist meetings and deported about 400 suspect aliens with little legal process.

The most recent example of dealing with enemies within is, of course, the early 1950s. While Joseph McCarthy's ghoulish tactics were repugnant, we now know from the Soviet archives that the Kremlin did maintain a spy network within the American government. Consider the times. In August 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atomic bomb. Nuclear weapons were new, and many feared that the ideologues who ran the Kremlin and preached world revolution might use them. Then China, with a quarter of the world's population, fell to communism. The next year communist North Korea invaded South Korea. And during this period, Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were caught spying for the Soviet Union. This climate of fear resulted in congressional hearings, new laws, blacklists and vastly expanded powers for Hoover's FBI.

So. Did those "solutions" work? Did Hoovers tactic end the bombings? Did Lincoln's help the war effort or not?

It's easy to dismiss that period as an overreaction to a limited threat. Compare it, however, with what we face today. Al Qaeda is a determined but ragtag bunch of Third World revolutionaries and nihilists, without a single country in the world that will openly house, feed and supply them. In the early 1950s the second most powerful country in the world, with nuclear weapons and dozens of major allies, was actively seeking to infiltrate America and its government.

We have been here before. America has a long history--some of it good, some bad--of trying to ensure the security of its citizens against mortal threats from within. Nothing in our present crisis suggests that we need throw away that history, those lessons or our fundamental belief that liberty can indeed be balanced with security. The question is how to do it this time.

 

[Don Roley]

The New York Times has disclosed that the Administration is breaking the law.

Whoops! Is it? Is that the profesional legal opinion of the supreme court or other agency?

You might want to re-read post #331 by Carol Kaur again. Repeating the same thing over and over again so that it gets accepted may work, but is not as good as trying to really get into the matter and find the real truth IMO.

As for the matter of the press, difficult subject.

When Hiroshima was bombed, some of the newspapers in New Mexico that were used to policing themselves so as not to reveal secrets actually asked the goverment if they should report the story. I remember about 15 years ago as the ground assault into Iraq was being launched how reporters were trying their best to give the numbers and movements of the coalition forces. Some of the Iraqi troops were found to be getting great intelligence from CNN.

So the debate is a rather vital one. Today's news services really do not seem to be interested in the damage they do as long as they can get a story that will bring them a lot of money.

In this case, I think there is a very real possibility that some folks that might have been caught by monitoring their finacial transactions are not disapearing before they can be rounded up, or at least covering their tracks or changing tacitics so they can't be cuaght in the future.

So yeah, Americans might die in large numbers because of this story.

So where is the debate about the responsibilities of the press instead of just its rights? We obviously need to think about the matter and debate it. But instead whenever someone even expresses an opinion that the press is not doing a good thing, they get savaged. Hardly free and open debate, eh?

We have determined that a newspaper can't incite others to violence, or tell lies, or things like that. So it is hardly the case that the press has a free pass to do whatever it wants. So, what is the limits of the press when it reveals stuff that may get Americans killed? Did the framers of the constitution even consider the situation where CNN might reveal the identity of the biggest American mole in Al-Queda and thus insure that he gets taken out and shot?

 

[michaeledward]

We obviously need to think about the matter and debate it.

I read an interesting quote today from Senator Leahey.

Why don't we just let Congress take the next few years off ... the Vice President is can tell us what the law is.



The Fourth Amendment says what it says ....

The Administration Broke the Law, and continues to Break the Law.

 

[Don Roley]

The Administration Broke the Law, and continues to Break the Law.

Again, you might want to read what I wrote,

Repeating the same thing over and over again so that it gets accepted may work, but is not as good as trying to really get into the matter and find the real truth IMO.

So, where is the legal decisions by the supreme court and all the other things I mentioned?

As an American living overseas the idea that my finacial records are off limits to searches by the goverment is a joke. Try taking or transfering more than 10,000 dollars over the border sometime.

Do you think that anyone can say/print anything that will probably result in the death of another? I do not. If you feel the same, then where do we draw the line and start the debate? I know that the Clinton administration complained about various media sources. Are those of us (including goverment sources) forbidden to do the same?

 

[michaeledward]

So, where is the legal decisions by the supreme court and all the other things I mentioned?

I keep forgetting why I have you on my ignore list, Don Roley.

But, you're right ... the Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue. Are you calling on Congress to begin Impeachment proceedings to determine the legality? Isn't that the way it was done during the Clinton Administration. That is the correct channel to determine the legitimacy of the Presidents' program.

Have you written your Senator and Congressman?

This is not about what the Papers print. It is about the actions taken by the Administration.

And your do nothing Congress is facilitating their improper, and I believe, illegal behavior.

 

[Don Roley]

I keep forgetting why I have you on my ignore list, Don Roley.

I am confused. How can you read and reply to what I write if I am on your ignore list? It seems rather rude to make a very public mention of the fact that someone is on your ignore list instead of just doing it and not saying anything about it. Especially when it seems to not be the case.

What I am saying is that you keep saying that the president has broken the law when no one in any position of authority, even in the democratic party, is saying that. I know my financial records are not secret based on my experiences in transferring money to Japan in the last decade.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note.

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile).

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Senior Moderator

 

[michaeledward]

A wonderful quote at the end of the interview last evening between Helen Thomas and Jon Stewart.

Ms. Thomas said, "I do believe in the right of the people to know almost everything".

Think about that as Congressman Hastert (R-IL) and Congressman Hayworth (R-AZ) introduce a resolution 'condemning' the New York Times for reporting on the warrantless financial tracking program.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062806/nytimes.html

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.

Oh, yeah ... I also like this argument ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-sargent/white-house-assault-on-bi_b_23908.html

 

[Monadnock]

I guess it would then be OK for the Press to give away our secrets to our enemies (who read the Times anyways), after all, they are protected. All hail the Times! Ye that can do no wrong in the eyes of fanatical lefties and hopless socialists!

Gosh, the government just turned evil since 2000. None of this stuff evvvvver happened before then.

"Take me down to the paradise city...." What!? Can't I live in a dream too?

P.S. Not a Republican.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Unless a Republican leaks the fact that an ambassadors wife is a CIA agent. Thats just plain wrong.