Hulver's site || So

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

By jimgon (Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:26:12 PM EST) (all tags)

You have a US Congressman saying the government should prosecute a newspaper, and an Attorney General who agrees in principle.

The article pretty much says it all. A US Rep calling for the prosecution of the New York Times because of it's publishing of information. You also have the Attorney General who previously stated that he felt the government could prosecute journalists for release secret information.

Good thing that the Supreme Court is there to protect the US Constitution.

I really don't feel that paranoid anymore.

< da da | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

So | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Be reasonable by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 5) #1 Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:37:11 PM EST

How will things improve if we don't kill the messenger?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

it gets worse. by aphrael (4.00 / 2) #2 Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:49:11 PM EST

some people are suggesting we should apply the rules of trade secret law to secret government programs --- eg, that the state could sue the newspaper for the reduced value of the program after the trade secret is revealed.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

: Does it work both ways? by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 4) #3 Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:19:50 PM EST

Can I demand a rebate on my taxes for the reduced value, both domestically and abroad, for the American Citizen Brand?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]

why do you hate freedom? by LinDze (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:57:14 AM EST

Every bit of information that you give the terrorists costs more american lives. Frankly, the only people who are trying to defend these traitors are pushing their own liberal agenda to bring down our proud american traditions!

The founders of our great country knew that you have to make sacrifices to protect the greater good. George Washington himself said "Upon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprizes...and for want of it, they are generally defeated..." Unlike your radical left wing fear mongers he was willing to put it into action.

During the first years of our noble republic President Washington requested, and received, a full 12% of the budget dedicated to intelligence/covert activities. Even the holier than though thinkniks and "civil libertarians" couldnt hold back the truth! Thomas Pain, that false idol of "Liberalism", was expelled from an intelligence committee for leaking state secrets! How much more will it take for the common man to realise that politics is too important to be left to the public?

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei

Nice troll (n/t) by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:45:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]

What? by LinDze (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:04:45 PM EST

You assume this is a troll just because its 3am and id stumbled home from the pub?

thanks though. I did realize it was a bit over the top for husi. Probably work better somewhere with a little crazier slant and a little less critical thinking. I do want to point out that those are all facts though. IIRC at one point during the revolutionary war Washington had something like 40% of the congresses budget allocated to "covert" activities.

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei
[ Parent ]

: The best trolls by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #11 Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 12:16:07 PM EST

Use the facts, but slant them the right way. Take Fox News for instance.

[ Parent ]

And presumably, you disagree? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:27:27 AM EST

What public interest is served by this disclosure?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

In this case? by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:44:38 AM EST

Probably no advancement of the public cause is brought in this case. But the pursuit of the information and the right of the paper to publish it is with out question. It is a government operation and the newspaper has a First Ammendment right to be free of threats and government intimidation in pursuit of information.

What the Congressman and the Attorney General are doing is wrong. It's an attempt to intimidate the press. The aim is to prevent the press from investigating government. It would suppress the pursuit of information under the grounds of prosecution. A press under the thumb of government is not free.

[ Parent ]

Heh, you're funny by Rogerborg (4.00 / 2) #8 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:08:50 AM EST

You lost this argument back in 1861 or so. Take it up with Lincoln.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: Lincoln by jimgon (4.00 / 2) #9 Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:44:46 AM EST

Lincoln was a Republican. I expect no less from the vile cur.
Actually the continued discussion on what's allowable under law is a trademark of our system. Precedent is important, but we, like you Imperialists, are a common law country.

[ Parent ]

So | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: