Will it be a crime to say the president is a crook

[Doc]

WASHINGTON Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration's eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law.

But an aide to the bill's chief author, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said that is not the intention of the legislation.

"It in no way applies to reporters — in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week.

The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.

Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.

"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate.

DeWine is co-sponsoring the bill with Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The White House and Republican Senate leaders have indicated general support, but the bill could face changes as it works its way through Congress.

Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information.

But a special provision exists to provide added protections for highly classified electronic — or "signals" — intelligence. That would include U.S. intelligence codes or systems used to break them.

David Tomlin, the AP's assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine's bill.

"But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That's what some reporters do, often to great public benefit," he said.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the language would allow anyone — "if you read a story in the paper and pass it along to your brother-in-law" — to be prosecuted.

"As a practical matter, would they use this to try to punish any newspaper or any broadcast? It essentially makes coverage of any of these surveillance programs illegal," she said. "I'm sorry, that's just not constitutional."

More can be found here.

Well then. Looks like it will become a crime to say that the president's actions are criminal. Wee.

You know all that talk about keeping guns around, to shed a little blood and water the seeds of liberty? Well, It's getting about time to use them.

I do not look kindly upon facism. It is one thing I simply do not like.

[ima_nerd]

Yikes. That doesn't look good at all. I doubt it would ever pass in its current form, though. Even the spineless Democrats currently in office would have to campaign against that.

[Doc]

Ah, but thanks to the patriot act, this bill can be deemed "secret" and passed through with out anybody actually reading it. So that the terrorists don't know about it. And of course, anybody protesting this bill will be tarred and feathered for "letting the terrorists win" and not being a patriot.

Scary times ahead.

[Alram]

John Adams, the 2nd president of the USA, passed the Alien and Sedition act which was then used to jail journalists who criticized him.

[Occhidiangela]

More can be found here.

Well then. Looks like it will become a crime to say that the president's actions are criminal. Wee.

You know all that talk about keeping guns around, to shed a little blood and water the seeds of liberty? Well, It's getting about time to use them.

I do not look kindly upon facism. It is one thing I simply do not like.
[right][snapback]104834[/snapback][/right]

This is a little bass ackwards. It is the obligation of those handling classified information to protect and safeguard it.

I expect this is a bizarre attempt to adapt a version of the British Official Secrets Act. I need to see the actual language to understand just what is going on here.

Occhi

[roguebanshee]

I wouldn't mind seeing another source on this, but it doesn't surprise me that much to see something like this proposed. Seen from the outside the US government has pulled heavily towards facism lately.

[Doc]

Other Sources.

Even proposing such a bill is a betrayal of the Constitution.

[roguebanshee]

This link has a pdf with the excact wording.

Hmm, seems like this DeWine fellow has an interesting view on the constitution.

[Doc]

So... It's retroactive.

Which would mean... Anybody that has previously questioned this whole mess could be rounded up and be made an example of?

[GenericKen]

If critics want people to care, why do they keep using mushy, ill-defined words like "fascism" to describe the dillema?

This turn of events is better characterized as "police state" than fascist; the end of the toltalitarianism is ostensively to protect the people, not the state.

[Occhidiangela]

So... It's retroactive.

Which would mean... Anybody that has previously questioned this whole mess could be rounded up and be made an example of?
[right][snapback]104864[/snapback][/right]

Read much, Doc?

You might want to try doing so before commenting.

From part 2.B.1. (Scope)

"Electronic surveillance carried out pursuant the authority in the subsection (a) shall not be conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Do you find that ambiguous? I don't.

That said, I think this bill is a waste of time and effort. It seems to me an attempt to grow the Attorney General's discretionary powers. If you read further in the bill, there is language that, to my taste, is far too open ended in allowing the Attorney General to rule on what should or should not be done. This step is a blatant attempt to further empower the Executive Branch with little to no balance at hand.

FISA is good enough, given that it allows 72 hours to report stuff to the FISA court After The Fact for emerging intelligence targets. Checks and balances are a requirement of our system.

Our whole system is inefficient: On Purpose! Sure, dictatorship is more efficient, but that isn't what we signed up for. Our system requires us to work harder and smarter to do what we have to in order to retain checks and balances.

The leadership in the current executive branch is asking not to have to work too hard. They can pack sand, the lazy sunzabiznatches. I had to follow their freaking RoE. That RoE got people killed in Afghanistan for lack of a bomb here and there. Those jerks can learn to work under, and work with, a tight legal RoE.

If that job was easy, anyone could do it.

Occhi

[roguebanshee]

If critics want people to care, why do they keep using mushy, ill-defined words like "fascism" to describe the dillema?

This turn of events is better characterized as "police state" than fascist; the end of the toltalitarianism is ostensively to protect the people, not the state.
[right][snapback]104866[/snapback][/right]

Ill-defined?

From dictionary.reference.com:

Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Seems, to me at least, to be a fairly accurate description of where the US is currently headed. Or rather, what some politicians with varying degrees of influence are trying to make happen.

[Occhidiangela]

Ill-defined?

From dictionary.reference.com:

Seems, to me at least, to be a fairly accurate description of where the US is currently headed. Or rather, what some politicians with varying degrees of influence are trying to make happen.
[right][snapback]104877[/snapback][/right]

So, what do you intend to do about it?

Occhi

[GenericKen]

Ill-defined?

From dictionary.reference.com:

Seems, to me at least, to be a fairly accurate description of where the US is currently headed. Or rather, what some politicians with varying degrees of influence are trying to make happen.
[right][snapback]104877[/snapback][/right]

Yes, ill defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

There are no fewer than a dozen different definitions of fascism. That dictionary definition you posted is itself vague and sloppy as all hell in a desperate attempt to be apolitical.

[roguebanshee]

So, what do you intend to do about it?[right][snapback]104879[/snapback][/right]

Be happy that I'm not an american and not living in the US?

Americans aren't known for their acceptance of outside advice on their internal affairs.

[[wcip]Angel]

Isn't that a general rule that applies to everyone, Roguebanshee? :)

No citizens like having their politics questioned by outsiders who aren't part of their society and culture.

[Premezilla]

No citizens like having their politics questioned by outsiders who aren't part of their society and culture.
[right][snapback]104892[/snapback][/right]

It's just because of recent events that the US has been shackled to the spotlights casting the shadows of its citizens over the rest of the world. Other nations see the American people, but we don't see them.

[Rinnhart]

Americans aren't known for their acceptance of outside advice on their internal affairs.
[right][snapback]104890[/snapback][/right]

As a voter who's told at least two aussie and three japanese friends where they could stick their... energetic opinions on American politics, I'd like to field a little defense on this point.

It's easier to ignore foreign opinion as a whole than filter the good advice from the bad.

The truly savvy points are as rare from foreign commentators as they are from domestic. Generally, you get the same poorly informed bile the register bisquit at the Shell station regurgitates at you over your Times and Coke. Listening to three hundred million people point at a photo of GW beneath a bold-faced headline and vomit rhetoric they heard on the Today Show is enough.

Additionally, those "taxes suck and so does the government" jabs between friends at the pump tend to mutate into "your government sucks and so do you" when coming from our international voice. No, I didn't vote for him. No, I'm not happy with the direction of the government. No, I don't want American soldiers murdering everyone in Iraqi, but at this moment New South Wales is looking like a good alternative- thanks, would you assume some more facts about my political inclinations?

When it can't be kept constructive it just turns into so much more tiring, boring, circular bull#$%& that I really don't want to deal with. I get home and I don't care how "OMG DUM" Bush is- I care how much my taxes are going to cost me and wonder if the counter jockey could ID me if I didn't pay for my gas the next time I needed a fill-up.

That having been said, to ignore all foreign opinions is a pretty bad idea. That's why I rely upon my government to filter and hand feed me only the ripest, juciest tidbits of pro-American propaganda the intelligence bureaus can get their greasy little hands on.



...What?



However, to presume to impose this upon a public forum (using the term broadly) is simply bad form. I don't think anyone here would do it. I know I visit the Lounge because I am curious what eloquent, semi-delusional banter about a wide variety of topics by a wide variety of people has been taking place.

And here, at the end, I look back to the post that spawned this spiel and realize I may have read it entirely wrong and wow it's late/early.

[Occhidiangela]

As a voter who's told at least two aussie and three japanese friends where they could stick their... energetic opinions on American politics, I'd like to field a little defense on this point.

[right][snapback]104895[/snapback][/right]

When one leads, one exposes one's self to criticism. When one grabs for the limelight, one will have detractors. And, when one attempts to impose democracy at the point of a bayonet, one should expect to receive at least some negative feedback.

The irony in all of this is the illusion that there are simple choices. In international affairs, there aren't. The way the official releases, media comments, and so on present difficult situations packages complex, multi-variable problems in simple terms is an aid to understanding, but it is also an obstacle to understanding.

Sheep of various stripes seem to adapt the attitude that got GW Bush and Company into Iraq in the first place: A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

So, if we go back to the opening post of this thread, no, you won't get arrested for criticizing the White House and its decisions based on this new bill (should it pass) and yes, your tax bill won't go down any time soon thanks to the irresponsible departure from financial discipline the Bush Administration has undertaken, with considerable support and consent of the pork mongers in Congress.

When the Iranian Euro Oil Bourse opens, reach into your pocket and ask yourself:

What's in your wallet?

Occhi

[Doc]

A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.
[right][snapback]104897[/snapback][/right]

Now the years are rollin' by me, they are rockin' evenly
And I'm older than I once was, younger than I'll be, that's not unusual
Though it isn't strange, after changes upon changes
We are more or less the same, after changes we are more or less the same...