PDA

View Full Version : trumping 1st Amendment rights



moblsv
05-22-2006, 06:35 AM
So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them? It's not national security that's at issue but abuse of power and the covering up of mistakes.

---
(source nytimes - registration required /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif )

Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible

The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales [nytimes.com] said yesterday.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."

"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."

"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."

Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."

Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.

Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.

Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.

"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."

Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.

"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."

---

an interesting side note
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf

moblsv
05-22-2006, 06:40 AM
on the side note at the end of original post
------------
AT&Tís Implementation of NSA Spying on American Citizens
31 December 2005
I wrote the following document in 2004 when it became clear to me that AT&T,
at the behest of the National Security Agency, had illegally installed secret computer gear
designed to spy on internet traffic. At the time I thought this was an outgrowth of the
notorious ďTotal Information AwarenessĒ program which was attacked by defenders of
civil liberties. But now itís been revealed by the New York Times that the spying program
is vastly bigger and was directly authorized by president Bush, as he himself has now
admitted, in flagrant violation of specific statutes and Constitutional protections for civil
liberties. I am presenting this information to facilitate the dismantling of this dangerous
Orwellian project.

http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf

Gayle in MD
05-22-2006, 09:33 AM
Our only hope, is a Democratic majority in the Congress and the Senate. It's the ONLY way we can maintain our free press and our privacy rights. Bush and Gonzales will twist the law around, as they have already done, until we don't have any freedoms or rights left. Their tactics already demonstrate hallmarks of communist fascist dictatorships.

Gayle in Md.

catscradle
05-23-2006, 09:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Our only hope, is a Democratic majority in the Congress and the Senate. It's the ONLY way we can maintain our free press and our privacy rights. Bush and Gonzales will twist the law around, as they have already done, until we don't have any freedoms or rights left. Their tactics already demonstrate hallmarks of communist fascist dictatorships.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

You really believe it's about Democrats and Republicans? You are naive then. It is about big government, FDR stepped on few constitutional toes achieving his aims, as did JFK and LBJ. Jimmy Carter was pretty much above board and was a terribly ineffective president as a result.

wolfdancer
05-23-2006, 09:55 AM
No other President has ever placed himself above the constitution, nor tried so hard to abridge the rights granted under it. No President has ever entered office with a War agenda as his main priority.And no party has ever tried so hard (the K street Project) to perpetuate it's rule by questionable, maybe illegal conduct.
While both parties are beholden to big business, a change of leadership, a change of the ruling party, might delay the inevitable....the coming Orwellian society.

hondo
05-23-2006, 10:07 AM
You're probably right.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Our only hope, is a Democratic majority in the Congress and the Senate. It's the ONLY way we can maintain our free press and our privacy rights. Bush and Gonzales will twist the law around, as they have already done, until we don't have any freedoms or rights left. Their tactics already demonstrate hallmarks of communist fascist dictatorships.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

You really believe it's about Democrats and Republicans? You are naive then. It is about big government, FDR stepped on few constitutional toes achieving his aims, as did JFK and LBJ. Jimmy Carter was pretty much above board and was a terribly ineffective president as a result.
<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
05-23-2006, 10:08 AM
You're probably right ,too.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> No other President has ever placed himself above the constitution, nor tried so hard to abridge the rights granted under it. No President has ever entered office with a War agenda as his main priority.And no party has ever tried so hard (the K street Project) to perpetuate it's rule by questionable, maybe illegal conduct.
While both parties are beholden to big business, a change of leadership, a change of the ruling party, might delay the inevitable....the coming Orwellian society. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
05-24-2006, 04:34 AM
In this case, it's about abuse of power, and the desrtuction of constitutional rights, obstruction of justice, a pre presidential secret agenda for war, and the resulting war profits for big business, a family (Bush and Cheney) with too close personal and business ties with Arabs and the US Oil Cartel, and the oil business, and a party agenda for extending the wealth of the wealthy, on the backs of the middle class. It's about removing the checks and balances from our government, no accountability, and supression of our free press. It's about lying pigs, with no conscience.

I would prefer to see the Independent party take over, and absolutely all of the incumbents removed from office, but since that isn't likely, I hope for a Democratic majority in both the house and the senate, so that Bush will have to account publically for what he has done to this country. Anyone who would compare this administration to Carter, Kennedy or FDR, shouldn't be calling me Naive'....

Gayle in Md.

catscradle
05-24-2006, 05:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ... Anyone who would compare this administration to Carter, Kennedy or FDR, shouldn't be calling me Naive'....

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

First of all I didn't compare anybody to Carter except to suggest Carter is the exception to the Presidential persona.
Let me see, FDR manipulated us into a war. Admittedly one we should have been in the first place. He ignored a ton of laws. Again to a good purpose, but do we let ignoring the law go if it's to a good purpose.
JFK had the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and got us rolling into Vietnam (certainly a much worse mistake than Iraq).
LBJ firmly, very firmly entrenched us in Vietnam and lied through his teeth about his intent.
The ensuing Republicans were just as bad, but you were defending the dems so I'll skip them.

I don't defend what is going on in the country (the world in general for that matter) but the problem is big business &amp; big government (can we foresee world government eventually?). The Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or Libertarians aren't going to change that, they'll only each take their turn being corrupted. The old saying is "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but it is more insidious than that. The process of getting the power, which is what politics is, is the corrupting influence. The Dems are no better than the Republicans, just different. I don't care if the Dems get in, though the particular one available in the last two Presidential elections would have been disastrous, but things aren't going to change.
Call me jaded, but I've seen a lot of promises go by the wayside and a lot of hopes dashed in 60 years. And history rolls along without it making too much difference who is in the "Oval Office".

Qtec
05-24-2006, 05:57 AM
If it doesnt make any difference who is in power, do you have a Democracy?
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
05-24-2006, 08:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> If it doesnt make any difference who is in power, do you have a Democracy?
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

We have never claimed to have a democracy in this country.
Steve

hondo
05-24-2006, 10:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> If it doesnt make any difference who is in power, do you have a Democracy?
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

We have never claimed to have a democracy in this country.


...............................................
??? I didn't know that!?!?
Steve
<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
05-24-2006, 11:02 AM
Hondo,
The United States is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

....and to the Republic, for which it stands....
Steve

hondo
05-24-2006, 11:54 AM
Oh! Okay. I figured a true republic(an) would
straighten me out.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Hondo,
The United States is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

....and to the Republic, for which it stands....
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
05-24-2006, 12:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The United States is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. <hr /></blockquote>
and if GWB has his way, it'll end up as a Banana Republic.
Steve, the words Democracy and Republic have through common usage come to mean about the same thing:
Republic
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government.
Even old GWB says we are trying to establish a Democracy in Iraq......he may mean a Republican democracy though where the President is a Monarch

Then again, you may be right, since a Democracy also means : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
That went out the door with GWB

pooltchr
05-24-2006, 07:39 PM
Wolf,
The big difference is that as a Republic, we do NOT live by rule of the majority. And it's a good thing. The general population does not have time nor the willingness to study and evaluate many of the issues we face in this country. Too many have a gut reaction, blindly follow their party leaders, or are blinded by their own agenda. (Granted, many of our elected officials also, unfortunately, fit that same description). In theory, we elect people to government to represent us. If we like the way they do their job, we let them stay. If we don't, we vote them out. Imagine the chaos if every bill that ever came up for a vote in congress had to be put to a national popular vote. We would be going to the poles every week! Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule. It couldn't possibly work, and if it did, our country would go down the drain quicker than you can say Liquid Plumber! I like the way the government was set up. I only wish it had stayed within the guidelines that were laid out in our Constitution. The government has grown way beyond the original boundaries, and if it isn't stopped, it will be the demise of our country.
There are too many uninformed, uneducated, potential voters to allow me to ever be comfortable with the idea of a pure democracy. (We just have to stop sending so many of them to Washington!)
Steve

wolfdancer
05-24-2006, 10:42 PM
Steve, you're right of course...but even the Gov. info sites uses the term to explain our system
web page (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm7.htm)
There is some interesting reading on that site.

pooltchr
05-25-2006, 03:54 AM
Very interesting reading. Did you catch the part about the states still holding control over education, health, transportation and law enforcement. I wish that were still true. The fact is, that the Fed holds the trump card in all these areas. Sure, the states are free to do as they wish in these areas, but if they want federal money, they need to toe the line. Your state can run their education systems any way they want, but there is not DC money unless they follow the Federal plans. Likewise for the other areas. My city is in desparate need of more roads to handle increasing traffic, yet they are spending millions on building a light rail system that is projected to relieve less than 1% of the traffic congestion. Why? Because the Fed says we need mass transit more than we need better roads. By attaching strings to the Federal money, Washington has effectively pulled the rug out from under state and local governments.

Thanks for the link.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-25-2006, 05:27 AM
First of all I didn't compare anybody to Carter except to suggest Carter is the exception to the Presidential persona.
Let me see, FDR manipulated us into a war. FDR didn't promise no Nation building, while all along, having a secret agenda for going to war as soon as possible, and suing a National disaster, (9/11) with faulty intentionally scewed and cherry picked intelligence to fool the American public. He also didn't refuse to listen to CIA experts, and then blame those same experts for his own deceitful cherry picking of intel. Admittedly one we should have been in the first place. He ignored a ton of laws. Again to a good purpose, but do we let ignoring the law go if it's to a good purpose. Ignoring the law, is a different thing from going before the Congress, the Senate, the American people, and the world, and intentionally lying. In fact, it is a felony to do so. It is well documented that this administration didn't want to hear anything about bin Laden, even after they were told that he had plans to crash planes into buildings a month before 9/11, but instead insisted that all they were interested in hearing about was S.H., and Iraq.
JFK had the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and got us rolling into Vietnam (certainly a much worse mistake than Iraq). Eisenhower got us rolling into Vietnam, not Kennedy. Kennedy didn't want a buildup in Vietnam, and some say that he was assinated by big business, who wanted to go to war for the purpose of profiteering. There are some very good books on this theory,
LBJ firmly, very firmly entrenched us in Vietnam and lied through his teeth about his intent. I agree, and our country learned a very hard bought lesson from this huge mistake, which George Bush totally ignored.
The ensuing Republicans were just as bad, but you were defending the dems so I'll skip them. I am not defending the Dems, I am only saying that the only way to stop the destruction which is going on in every aspect of American principles, is to hold this idiot in the White House accountable for what he is doing to our country, and to impeach him, and vote the republicans who have refused to do the needed investigations and oversight intended by our founding fathers, out of office. Personally, I think all incumbants whould be voted out, just to show our representatives, that we will not put up with their corruption, and destruction.

I don't defend what is going on in the country (the world in general for that matter) but the problem is big business &amp; big government (can we foresee world government eventually?). It seems to me the problem is a President who is only interested in waging war for the benefit of Corporate profiteering, and adhering to policies which create huge debt, loss of Americans Jobs, and a declilne in middle class wages, all for the benefit of Corporate fascists, with no loyalty to our country, or to the American worker. The Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or Libertarians aren't going to change that, they'll only each take their turn being corrupted. The old saying is "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but it is more insidious than that. The process of getting the power, which is what politics is, is the corrupting influence. The Dems are no better than the Republicans, just different. I have posted many times that the most important thing that Americans could insist on is public financed campaign reform. I don't care if the Dems get in, though the particular one available in the last two Presidential elections would have been disastrous, but things aren't going to change. No one, absolutely NO ONE, could have been as disasterous as George Bush,....70 percent of the people in this country now know this.
Call me jaded, but I've seen a lot of promises go by the wayside and a lot of hopes dashed in 60 years. And history rolls along without it making too much difference who is in the "Oval Office". As have I, in 61 years, however, I still believe we are the greatest country in the world, and COULD, make positive changes in what is wrong in our government. However, having a dishonest president, with an extremely corrupt party to cover for him, is the worst case scenario, IMO, and that is precisely what we have now. An honest, and thorough investigation of George Bush, and his path to war, would have led to impeachment long ago, had their been a democratic majority, IMO.

Past Presidents, have used war as a means of economic advantage for the wealthy in this country, just as Bush has done, and it should be stopped. Kennedy spoke out against such outrageous policies.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-25-2006, 06:38 AM
Thanks...just what my post was about, lol. I don't care what other administrations did years ago, I only care about how to stop this one, the worst in history. But then, I am so naive'! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-25-2006, 06:44 AM
BWA HA HA HA...ah hem, I just love it when the right tries to claim that we don't have a democracy in this country, show's how ignorant they are. Yeah! WE sure don't right now, we have the makings of a dictatorship!

What we have is a democratic republic. I am sick and tired of this BS about we are not a democracy. It's just another play on words used by the confused right. Semantics AGAIN! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-25-2006, 09:36 AM
Hondo,
Please tell your friend that I'm sorry she thinks that knowing the difference between a democracy and a republic is BS. Personally, I always thought it was what really made our country great. But then, what do I know?

My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with facts! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Steve

hondo
05-25-2006, 09:46 AM
I believe you've already told her.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Hondo,
Please tell your friend that I'm sorry she thinks that knowing the difference between a democracy and a republic is BS. Personally, I always thought it was what really made our country great. But then, what do I know?

My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with facts! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
05-25-2006, 10:01 AM
Steve, I also googled "State Sovereignty" and found more int. reading. "Federalism Vs States rights, etc
As you pointed out though....the threat of with holding Gov'T funds for needed projects....resolves that issue

Gayle in MD
05-26-2006, 06:50 AM
Hondo, please ask your friend,... if we don't have a democracy in this country, why are our people dying on the other side of the world so that Iraq can be a democracy....

To say that we are not a democracy, is to split hairs only for the sake of correcting someone else, we ARE a democracy, that's why we each have a vote, except, when republicans tamper with elections, aka, Katherine Harris, and throw our votes away, or prevent us from counting all of them, or use PURGE lists, 2000, Fla, ....or computer generated continuous dialing of the democratic information line, aka, OHIO in 2004.

Wonder why we bother teaching "Problems of Democracy" in our high schools, since we're not a democracy... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wonder why Democracy, is the only reason George Bush has to build a case for our youth to die and be maimed everyday, day after day, in the midst of civil war, militarily un-winnable, on the other side of the world, so the Iraqis can have a democracy??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wonder why when the right wants to make a moot point, semantics is their only tool?

Gayle in Md.