NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blogs.abcnews.com//theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

What's frightening are the comments below the piece. There's some whacked out people who don't seem to understand that the reason why we have Freedom of the Press is so that they can act as a check on the Government's power.

But again, this is all part of the Big Picture of the Bush administration. They think of themselves as CEOs, absolute rulers of their "company", and don't seem to think that the U.S. citizenry should be kept apprised of any shady business they might pull.

Yep. The Bush administration has gone out of its way to neuter the press, and this is just another step. The press can't function as a watchdog if leakers are afraid to come forward. If I were a reporter, I'd tell anyone who wanted to leak for spin purposes to fuck off--everything they say is on the record, all the time, and if they don't like it, tough shit. Both sides can play tough if they want to.

Yep. The Bush administration has gone out of its way to neuter the press, and this is just another step. The press can't function as a watchdog if leakers are afraid to come forward. If I were a reporter, I'd tell anyone who wanted to leak for spin purposes to fuck off--everything they say is on the record, all the time, and if they don't like it, tough shit. Both sides can play tough if they want to.
actually, there shouldn't be any forms of Leaks. period.

Ah well. There goes the right to criticise freedom of press internationally. :)

actually, there shouldn't be any forms of Leaks. period.
Why not? Its the only way we know what the fuck the government is trying to pull some of the time. No leaks would have meant no Watergate exposure.

Ah well. There goes the right to criticise freedom of press internationally. :)
"Sees the boost in BBC's raitings"

Pretty soon the only semi-reliable source of information about usa internal politics will be from external sources

actually, there shouldn't be any forms of Leaks. period.
I disagree. Without leaks, there's no chance for whistleblowing on wrongdoing inside the administration or Congress. Without leaks, Watergate never becomes a scandal. Neither does Iran-Contra. Neither do the latest two domestic spying cases. Or the WMD story and the spun intel.

Maybe the MSM will actually hold the government accountable now. Maybe, just maybe, the MSM will stop sucking the administrations dick.

I wonder if Fox News is being spied on...:p

"Sees the boost in BBC's raitings"

Pretty soon the only semi-reliable source of information about usa internal politics will be from external sources
Globally, that is the norm rather than the exception. Join the club.

Globally, that is the norm rather than the exception. Join the club.
Yup, I love the UK, we get the BBC... and we get the one everyone else uses!

actually, there shouldn't be any forms of Leaks. period.

You're right, there shouldn't be leaks. But as long as our government insists on conducting shady programs of dubious legality, then leaks are necessary. It's the press' greatest duty to keep the American people apprised of government actions that might be harmful.

actually, there shouldn't be any forms of Leaks. period.
The British experience is that leaks are an unofficial government function. Often a leak is necessary to provide an advantage in some hidden inter-departmental war, or pave the way for an official policy announcement. You would be surprised how many are 'helpful' to someone upstairs.

You're right, there shouldn't be leaks. But as long as our government insists on conducting shady programs of dubious legality, then leaks are necessary. It's the press' greatest duty to keep the American people apprised of government actions that might be harmful.
now how can you tell when a leak is for the genuine concern for the welfare of the people or to undermine the current administration and to make certain policial parites look bad?

You talk leaks to put positive spins on things, there are leaks to put negative spins on things.

I'm more concerned that there are people with their hands on our (national and private) secrets that cannot keep those secrets. How do you know who else is getting leaked information from these confidential sources?

The British experience is that leaks are an unofficial government function. Often a leak is necessary to provide an advantage in some hidden inter-departmental war, or pave the way for an official policy announcement. You would be surprised how many are 'helpful' to someone upstairs.
and harmful as well.

now how can you tell when a leak is for the genuine concern for the welfare of the people or to undermine the current administration and to make certain policial parites look bad?

You talk leaks to put positive spins on things, there are leaks to put negative spins on things.

I'm more concerned that there are people with their hands on our (national and private) secrets that cannot keep those secrets. How do you know who else is getting leaked information from these confidential sources?
You mean like Valerie Plame's identity?

Look, leaking state secrets is illegal, and the leakers take their chances knowing that if they get caught, they might face jail time. And some have indeed gone to jail for leaking information, and in the case of the Plame leak, I hope some people go to jail for a long time.

But because of this debate in the past, whistleblowers have been given nominally protected status as leakers. Those protections have been stripped away or unenforced by the Bush administration lately because they don't like their dirt aired, but the problem is not the fact that there's leaking going on as it is that there's illegality on the part of the administration occurring.

now how can you tell when a leak is for the genuine concern for the welfare of the people or to undermine the current administration and to make certain policial parites look bad?

You talk leaks to put positive spins on things, there are leaks to put negative spins on things.

I'm more concerned that there are people with their hands on our (national and private) secrets that cannot keep those secrets. How do you know who else is getting leaked information from these confidential sources?

Would you prefer that Watergate went unreported?

and harmful as well.
So? It suits the position of someone in government, and quite possibly some national interest, it damages the position of someone else, and perhaps some other interest. Maybe it's a zero sum game in the end. Harmful? You are talking about elected representatives doing their job, the same way office politics works in any company.

now how can you tell when a leak is for the genuine concern for the welfare of the people or to undermine the current administration and to make certain policial parites look bad?

Maybe if the current administration doesnt do anything worth leaking, there wont be a leak? If a leak undermines the current administration, maybe the current administration shouldnt do retarded shit? I dont know, just a guess.

Would you prefer that Watergate went unreported?
I would rather know that the secrets of my government as well as access to those secrets are held by people who know how to keep such secrets.

So? It suits the position of someone in government, and quite possibly some national interest, it damages the position of someone else, and perhaps some other interest. Maybe it's a zero sum game in the end. Harmful? You are talking about elected representatives doing their job, the same way office politics works in any company.
Office politics don't hold the potential of getting people killed in other countries.

maybe it is a zero sum game. or maybe not. but then let's make it certain that it is a zero sum game by plugging all forms of leaks. Positive as well as Negative.

I would rather know that the secrets of my government as well as access to those secrets are held by people who know how to keep such secrets.
Nothing personal but that sounds like the "ignorance is bliss" maxim taken to its logical extreme. Seriously, does that mean that you'd rather not know about lawbreaking and corruption inside government? If that's the case, then you can always just tune in to American Idol and tune out of the rest of the world. Lots of Americans do it.

Maybe if the current administration doesnt do anything worth leaking, there wont be a leak? If a leak undermines the current administration, maybe the current administration shouldnt do retarded shit? I dont know, just a guess.
Our government and it's employees deal with secrets every day. what programs are doing what and where.

No Administration is clean. no Administration does not do "Retarded Shit". No Government is Guiltless.

anyone who thinks so can easily be swayed by any propganda... Positive or Negative.

Our government and it's employees deal with secrets every day. what programs are doing what and where.

No Administration is clean. no Administration does not do "Retarded Shit". No Government is Guiltless.

anyone who thinks so can easily be swayed by any propganda... Positive or Negative.
If no administration is clean and no government is guiltless why the fuck are we trying to make it easier for them to not be liable for their decisions?

Nothing personal but that sounds like the "ignorance is bliss" maxim taken to its logical extreme. Seriously, does that mean that you'd rather not know about lawbreaking and corruption inside government? If that's the case, then you can always just tune in to American Idol and tune out of the rest of the world. Lots of Americans do it.
there is a difference in being informed about lawbreaking/corruption and leaks.

Leaks is someone giving information a) they are not suppose to give out. b) giving information they were not suppose to have in the first place. c) Bypassing due process and procedures (checks and balances) and undermining the systems set up to safeguard against corruption.

ever heard the term Trial by Press?

why have a judicial system when all the information can be given to the press and then have the people decide, without lawyers and judges, who's guilty or not. it's the same thing.

If no administration is clean and no government is guiltless why the fuck are we trying to make it easier for them to not be liable for their decisions?
because, they cannot recieve fair and just trials for their crimes if the evidence is tainted by being spread around and corrupted by bias.

if there is a two party system (actually more than two parties) they should be using the proper checks and balances to bring the corruption to light. and thus getting those bastards arrested or at least removed from office. using the press with Leaks undermines those systems.

there is a difference in being informed about lawbreaking/corruption and leaks.

Leaks is someone giving information a) they are not suppose to give out. b) giving information they were not suppose to have in the first place. c) Bypassing due process and procedures (checks and balances) and undermining the systems set up to safeguard against corruption.

ever heard the term Trial by Press?

why have a judicial system when all the information can be given to the press and then have the people decide, without lawyers and judges, who's guilty or not. it's the same thing.
And if you were really able to stop all leaking, then you'd be able to break the law with impunity, trusting in the fact that there would be no leaks to expose your wrongdoing. And a big part of the reason any of these criminal activities get to the trial stage is because someone, somewhere, told a reporter something that a higher-up had said was secret, and that someone decided that it was more important to get the story out and stop the wrongdoing.

No Administration is clean. no Administration does not do "Retarded Shit". No Government is Guiltless.

Well why must people be criticized for trying to "clean" it?

I would rather know that the secrets of my government as well as access to those secrets are held by people who know how to keep such secrets.

I'd rather that the people who hold secrets have the moral strength to realize that their first duty is to the American people and not their governmental superiors. Therefore if they're holding a secret about something that is dangerous to the American public or is illegal, then it is their duty to damn the legal consequences and leak the harmful activities to the press corps.

because, they cannot recieve fair and just trials for their crimes if the evidence is tainted by being spread around and corrupted by bias.

if there is a two party system (actually more than two parties) they should be using the proper checks and balances to bring the corruption to light. and thus getting those bastards arrested or at least removed from office. using the press with Leaks undermines those systems.
But leaks is just about the best system we have right now

Under your ideal conditions with correct checks and balances in place then yes there would be no need for leaks

But cuting the leaks without making sure other more official checks are in place is just irresponsable

Well why must people be criticized for trying to "clean" it?
so to you the results justify the means?

I'd rather that the people who hold secrets have the moral strength to realize that their first duty is to the American people and not their governmental superiors. Therefore if they're holding a secret about something that is dangerous to the American public or is illegal, then it is their duty to damn the legal consequences and leak the harmful activities to the press corps.no, their duty is to inform the proper people to formally investigate and persue the matter. the PRESS is not part of the Government.

so to you the results justify the means?
When right now there is no real other means to do what is necessary I guess so. The job needs to be done, and if we had reliable official checks and balances that worked as they are supposed to then there would be no justification for leaks … as it is we do not have such a system

I disagree. Without leaks, there's no chance for whistleblowing on wrongdoing inside the administration or Congress. Without leaks, Watergate never becomes a scandal. Neither does Iran-Contra. Neither do the latest two domestic spying cases. Or the WMD story and the spun intel.

Sounds good to me---no more classified leaks!

Watergate was not classified.

WMD story is a non-story.

But leaks is just about the best system we have right now

Under your ideal conditions with correct checks and balances in place then yes there would be no need for leaks

But cuting the leaks without making sure other more official checks are in place is just irresponsableand people will use the leaks to undermine their political enemies. to twist something innocent or even legal and make it seem evil and otherwise "Blown out of porportion." that detracts our government employees from doing what they are suppose to be doing and turning them into Firefighters and that wastes resources.

so to you the results justify the means?

What means? Stepping up and telling the truth about an unethical or illegal program in order to serve the public good rather than the political goals of your superiors?

Office politics don't hold the potential of getting people killed in other countries.
Depends on the company.

maybe it is a zero sum game. or maybe not. but then let's make it certain that it is a zero sum game by plugging all forms of leaks. Positive as well as Negative.
You never will. The people making the leaks are the most senior in the country. As a saying in the Russian police goes, "How are we supposed to fight organised crime? It is impossible to fight oneself."

no, their duty is to inform the proper people to formally investigate and persue the matter. the PRESS is not part of the Government.
And if the investigators are in on it, a la Watergate? What then? Who watches the Watchmen, JuNii?

You mean like Valerie Plame's identity?

Look, leaking state secrets is illegal, and the leakers take their chances knowing that if they get caught, they might face jail time. And some have indeed gone to jail for leaking information, and in the case of the Plame leak, I hope some people go to jail for a long time.

But because of this debate in the past, whistleblowers have been given nominally protected status as leakers. Those protections have been stripped away or unenforced by the Bush administration lately because they don't like their dirt aired, but the problem is not the fact that there's leaking going on as it is that there's illegality on the part of the administration occurring.

No crime involved in the Plame affair.

The only accusation comes from the investigation, not from the initial leak.

I hope false accusers go to jail.

Perhaps the problem isn't that there's leaks, it's that things are closed so tight that leaks are possible.

A truly competent and good administration doesn't need to hide policies or intentions. They need to protect the specific people enacting those policies, and perhaps the specific means by which those policies are being enacted, but the policies themselves should be public knowledge.

The public has a right to know if the administration is spying on journalists or domestic citizens. It does not have a right to know which ones, or who's doing it. The public has a right to know that its funds are being used to support a regime removal in Terrorististan. It does not have the right to know what the specific means are for doing so.

Thus, the only thing that should be "leaked" are actions against policy. Policy should be public, and specifics should not be leaked.

given this, there are basically three questions that need to be asked about any leak.
Is this a leak of policy? If so, the leaker should be protected, as the public has a right to know policy.
Is this a leak of action against policy? If so, the leaker should be protected as the public as a right to know if the policy (which they should already know) is not being followed.
Is this a leak of specific information of action or persons acting within policy? If so, the leaker should have the book thrown at them.

Sounds good to me---no more classified leaks!

Watergate was not classified.

WMD story is a non-story.
WMD is very much a story, and that you would characterize it as a non-story shows how deep you are in Bush's colon.

But hey, all anyone would have to do under your scenario is make any wrongdoing classified--problem solved!

Guess what--they've done that already. The preliminary investgation into the first NSA spying program was basically closed because the NSA wouldn't give the investigators the clearance they needed to do the investigation. Pretty fucking convenient, huh? Go back to your shed, tool.

No crime involved in the Plame affair.

The only accusation comes from the investigation, not from the initial leak.

I hope false accusers go to jail.No crime, huh? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html) :rolleyes:

What means? Stepping up and telling the truth about an unethical or illegal program in order to serve the public good rather than the political goals of your superiors?
the media is by no mean part of any judical process.

the media is by no mean part of any judical process.

No, but Freedom of the Press was guaranteed in the Constitution for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew that a government that was able to suppress the free press and hide it's actions from the same is a government capable of the worst kind of tyranny. The job of a healthy and funtioning press is as a watchdog that protects the people from their own government.

The 1st amendment is as key to fighting opression, if not moreso, as the 2nd. Why else do you think Freedom of the Press was built into the very fabric of the laws that form our country?

The Press might not be an official member of the legal process, but it is a vital component to justice.

Let's examine this.

The great and wise Junii says that leaking is bad and should be illegal. OK, let's examine JUST who leaks, shall we?

Senior administration officials and government functionaries, have as a matter of course always "leaked" unfavorable information about political opponents to the press. While not illegal, this is certainly morally questionable, but I do not hear Junii complaining about this.

Political parties, as a rule are as leaky as sieves. They leak and counter-leak each other. Is this illegal? No...but again it paints a not too flattering picture of the political parties in question. Is Junii all up in arms over this reprehensible state of affairs? No...all is fine in Juniiland with this.

Major corporations leak and smear opponents, employees who disagree with them, and even government officials who paint an unflattering picture of their business, business practices and non-public activities. Do I see a single thing out of Junii's corner on these activities? Nope.

So the only people Junii is mad at are folks who leak against the government whom we all know Junii loves and admires even when the emperor has been fully disrobed for the unprincipled, lying bastard he is.

You know the difference between false patriotism and real patriotism? Real patriots question their leaders and take responsibility for keeping them in line. False patriots blindly follow those leaders and use weak excuses to defend their positions.

False patriots say, "My President/Nation, right or wrong."

Real patriots say, "My country deserves better."

I think it is the responsibility of people to question their leaders, regardless of political affiliation, even if that leader is from their own political party. I am not defined by my political affiliation, or even whether I am liberal or conservative. I am defined by whether I take responsibility for my part in the process.

http://blogs.abcnews.com//theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

What's frightening are the comments below the piece. There's some whacked out people who don't seem to understand that the reason why we have Freedom of the Press is so that they can act as a check on the Government's power.

But again, this is all part of the Big Picture of the Bush administration. They think of themselves as CEOs, absolute rulers of their "company", and don't seem to think that the U.S. citizenry should be kept apprised of any shady business they might pull.

Well, let's think of this from another perspective.

I've seen on TV, quite a few interviews by various press organizations with known terrorists. Not that I'm saying the press is supporting terror - let's assume that they are as impartial as they say they are.

If I knew that you knew where terrorists hid out, and merely had you followed, traced, and your communications with them intercepted, it's not you that really has to worry about it - I'm never, ever going to prosecute you for anything, so you're really NOT threatened by a government fishing expedition.

But, because you're exercising your freedom of the press, you'll be leading me right to the terrorists. Who I will then capture or eliminate.

So, tell me, in that scenario, how were you, as a journalist, harmed?

But, because you're exercising your freedom of the press, you'll be leading me right to the terrorists. Who I will then capture or eliminate.

So, tell me, in that scenario, how were you, as a journalist, harmed?

The press loses every confidential source and possible terrorist interview. People become afraid to approach television, radio, even the newspapers for fear that they will be arrested for saying something the people in charge don't like.

If people become afraid of coming to the press because the press is being watched, how can the press maintain journalistic accuracy while being regulated in such a way?

The press loses every confidential source and possible terrorist interview. People become afraid to approach television, radio, even the newspapers for fear that they will be arrested for saying something the people in charge don't like.

If people become afraid of coming to the press because the press is being watched, how can the press maintain journalistic accuracy while being regulated in such a way?
Exactly. The press can't be free if it's being monitored by law enforcement without any specific reason. This very issue came up when Patrick Fitzgerald tried to subpoena the phone records of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller in the Plame investigation--the judge refused to give Fitzgerald the records because that would have given him access to all of their confidential informants. Instead, he ruled that the state's need in this case outweighed their right to keep their informants secret, and made them testify.

But the feds have gone beyond that--a judge said no to a request by a prosecutor, but the feds decided to do it without asking, and apparently did it in order to track down those they consider disloyal.

I would rather know that the secrets of my government as well as access to those secrets are held by people who know how to keep such secrets.

Doesn't that give them free reign to commit any crime they like and not get caught?

The press loses every confidential source and possible terrorist interview. People become afraid to approach television, radio, even the newspapers for fear that they will be arrested for saying something the people in charge don't like.

If people become afraid of coming to the press because the press is being watched, how can the press maintain journalistic accuracy while being regulated in such a way?

So you're saying that we shouldn't hunt down terrorists - we might scare someone - or everyone.

You're equating terrorists who kill thousands of innocent civilians in flaming death for fun - with people who want to express their opinions peacefully.

Doesn't that give them free reign to commit any crime they like and not get caught?
the press is not the police. nor are they appropriate avenues for official investigations.

all they do is allow the perpetrators to know that the jig is up and to pull out a scapegoat that will take the blame and the fall while the real crooks get away because everything got murky.

http://blogs.abcnews.com//theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

What's frightening are the comments below the piece. There's some whacked out people who don't seem to understand that the reason why we have Freedom of the Press is so that they can act as a check on the Government's power.

But again, this is all part of the Big Picture of the Bush administration. They think of themselves as CEOs, absolute rulers of their "company", and don't seem to think that the U.S. citizenry should be kept apprised of any shady business they might pull.

That isn't quite it.
They think they are inherently good - and therefore, their actions, whatever they may be, are good too.
Following that, any and all attempts to check and balance such actions are evil.

I'm assuming we all agree this reasoning is nonsense.
But it is valid, if you assume that 'They' are inherently good.
It is invalid, if you disagree with the part that 'They' are inherently good.

Well, it's just 2 more years, so I feel like letting 'em wallow in their own sense of self-righteousness.

So you're saying that we shouldn't hunt down terrorists - we might scare someone - or everyone.

You're equating terrorists who kill thousands of innocent civilians in flaming death for fun - with people who want to express their opinions peacefully.
Great straw man. Build that yourself?

It's not an either/or situation, and frankly, the relationship between government and the press has to be adversarial for it to work to the public's benefit. Maybe you want a Big Brother type government. Maybe you're one of those "sacrifice liberty for safety" people. I'm not, and neither are the people who are pissed off about this and similar programs.

Great straw man. Build that yourself?

It's not an either/or situation, and frankly, the relationship between government and the press has to be adversarial for it to work to the public's benefit. Maybe you want a Big Brother type government. Maybe you're one of those "sacrifice liberty for safety" people. I'm not, and neither are the people who are pissed off about this and similar programs.

No the previous poster built the strawman. I was just making reference to it.

You're the one making it an either/or. You're saying that it's going to be a Big Brother government - I'm not.

Hey JuNii...

If somehow leaks were COMPLETELY stopped, how would the public find out about Government corruption?

I mean, leaks are usually the smoke that leads to investigations. Without, smoke, how do you know there is fire?

Hey JuNii...

If somehow leaks were COMPLETELY stopped, how would the public find out about Government corruption?

I mean, leaks are usually the smoke that leads to investigations. Without, smoke, how do you know there is fire?

I'm not talking about leaks myself. Leaks happen because there is no such thing as a secret.

Hey JuNii...

If somehow leaks were COMPLETELY stopped, how would the public find out about Government corruption?

I mean, leaks are usually the smoke that leads to investigations. Without, smoke, how do you know there is fire?
it's called a multi party system.

the checks and balances would be used properly and correctly.

now would you like your hospital to leak information about you to other entities?

your lawyer?

Your banks?

no you would not, in fact there are laws in place to punnish those leaks.

yet leaks from what supposed to be our highest form of secret keepers are making it out everyday and people are applauding it. encouraging it and want to keep it going. basically the ends justifying the means.

So you're saying that we shouldn't hunt down terrorists - we might scare someone - or everyone.
I don't think this thread is about hunting terrorists, it's about spying on journalists and crippling free press.

I'm not talking about leaks myself. Leaks happen because there is no such thing as a secret.
actually there is no such thing as a person who can keep secrets.

I don't think this thread is about hunting terrorists, it's about spying on journalists and crippling free press.
the press won't be crippled.

and to the comment about who watches the watchers? who's watching the press?

the answer, the public.

why?

because they tell interesting stories.

it's called a multi party system.

the checks and balances would be used properly and correctly.

now would you like your hospital to leak information about you to other entities?

your lawyer?

Your banks?

no you would not, in fact there are laws in place to punnish those leaks.
There are a number of differences between private persons and their medical records, and government officials and their actions in their role as public officials.

yet leaks from what supposed to be our highest form of secret keepers are making it out everyday and people are applauding it. encouraging it and want to keep it going. basically the ends justifying the means.
So far as I can tell the ends do justify the means.
In many cases some kind of leak is the best way of acheiving the best possible outcome in the circumstances.

the press is not the police. nor are they appropriate avenues for official investigations.

all they do is allow the perpetrators to know that the jig is up and to pull out a scapegoat that will take the blame and the fall while the real crooks get away because everything got murky.

That's where you are quite wrong. The very purpose of a functioning free press is to act as watchdogs over the government. Again, that's why Freedom of the Press is such a dearly held right.

Without the press to do their own independent investigations, who would tell us when the government is up to something...the government?

So you're saying that we shouldn't hunt down terrorists - we might scare someone - or everyone.

That missed the point by so much it makes me wonder if you even read my post.

We shouldn't monitor the communications of the press and their sources even if we have an interest in finding those sources, like terrorists. We can hunt terrorists with any means available, and we should. But monitoring the calls a media outlet makes is not part of finding terrorists.

You're equating terrorists who kill thousands of innocent civilians in flaming death for fun - with people who want to express their opinions peacefully.

Actually, you're the one doing that. The media talks to so much more than just terrorists. If the goverment starts to monitor who the press talks to, they'll get much more information on corporate informants or government officials than on terrorists. The same people that ABC talks to about gardening tips or pet clothes will be on the same list as the terrorists that ABC talked to that day or week.

How do you think any person, like a political analyst or economics expert, would feel about going to the media if they knew it was being actively watched by the government? How do you know the information being collected is even being out to use fighting terrorism?

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

It seems like the phone records here are being used to find domestic sources, not terrorists. If the press cannot guarantee its source confidentiality because the government monitors its phone calls, how long before stories like the NSA phone domestic phone records collection or the warrantless wiretaps become impossible to pursue because people are afraid of being caught talking to the press?

it's called a multi party system.
A multi party system isn't an efficient to way to fight corruption. If that was the case, corruption would be much lower in countries with more governing parties than the US (which is false). Most parties are corrupt to some extent, so they are often not interested in openly digging too much dirt about the opposition. Also, this is like arguing that every new government should waste the time they should be spending in the present and future of the country, sifting through every document from the past administration, to check if wrong doing was done. Do you realise how ridiculous this is?
The checks and balances would be used properly and correctly.
What checks and balances? Whose checks and balances? Who will check on wrongdoing by agencies that classify their information? Can you name the checks and balances on the CIA and NSA or are you still relying on the multiparty system doing mutual dirty laundering in public (don't you think they have learned that lesson already)?
now would you like your hospital to leak information about you to other entities?
Er... But isn't this what the US government is doing, by outsourcing public investigations to private companies?
yet leaks from what supposed to be our highest form of secret keepers are making it out everyday and people are applauding it. encouraging it and want to keep it going. Basically the ends justifying the means.
How about the US government curbing on people's freedom to fight terrorism? How-come you don't question "does the end justify the means" when it's the other way around? If you think it's justifiable to spy on people, to fight terrorism, why isn't it justifiable to spy on the Government to fight corruption, tyranny or dictatorship?

Journalists are not terrorists. Throughout time, they have safeguarded YOUR liberties. Kick them in the mouth if you want but, one day, you'll wish they had their teeth back.

No crime involved in the Plame affair.

The only accusation comes from the investigation, not from the initial leak.

I hope false accusers go to jail.

If there was no crime comitted why would an investigation be needed? Why would both the CIA and DOJ state publicly that a crime was committed? Do you think Patrick Fitzgerald is an idiot and created this investigation out of sheer boredom? A crime was comitted and that's why the investigation happened. In the process of that investigation it was found that government officials lied, or deliberately mislead the investigators. One indictment already delivered and another one is on the way for Rove. So in your mind, releasing classified information for political purposes is sound intelligence policy? It procures the safety and security of our intelligence assets? Wrong is just God damned wrong regardless of party affiliation.

That's where you are quite wrong. The very purpose of a functioning free press is to act as watchdogs over the government. Again, that's why Freedom of the Press is such a dearly held right.the press are law enforcement where you live? they have the powers to arrest, obtain warrents, carry out searches, and authorized to handle evidence???

wow, while corrupt cops get jailtime. didn't hear what happened to those involved in Memmogate... how long did they get? aren't the Paparazzi guilty then of Harrassing people by taking unwarrent survelance photos?


Without the press to do their own independent investigations, who would tell us when the government is up to something...the government?the press can do their own independent investigations. just without the leaks.

Wait.. let me get this straight. The govt is shown to be trying to make sure the press doesnt uncover any of its wrong doing and there are actually people whining about it being brought to light? lol.

A multi party system isn't an efficient to way to fight corruption. If that was the case, corruption would be much lower in countries with more governing parties than the US (which is false). Most parties are corrupt to some extent, so they are often not interested in openly digging too much dirt about the opposition. Also, this is like arguing that every new government should waste the time they should be spending in the present and future of the country, sifting through every document from the past administration, to check if wrong doing was done. Do you realise how ridiculous this is?and those leaks to the media are not people with agendas of their own? they gathered the information and leaked them to the media. while the media can follow up on them, so can any investigative body that is actually AUTHORIZED to investigate them. and guess what. with that body doing it's work, you won't have a repeat of Memmogate where shoddy investigations embarressed the media more than their intended target... the President.

What checks and balances? Whose checks and balances? Who will check on wrongdoing by agencies that classify their information? Can you name the checks and balances on the CIA and NSA or are you still relying on the multiparty system doing mutual dirty laundering in public (don't you think they have learned that lesson already)?the checks and balances in the system. the media is not an offical part of that system. the more the media pokes their noses in. the more laws and changes will be done to keep them out.

tell me where in the constitution the media has the right to pry into government secrets.

Er... But isn't this what the US government is doing, by outsourcing public investigations to private companies?nope.

How about the US government curbing on people's freedom to fight terrorism? How-come you don't question "does the end justify the means" when it's the other way around? If you think it's justifiable to spy on people, to fight terrorism, why isn't it justifiable to spy on the Government to fight corruption, tyranny or dictatorship?me, honestly. I don't mind it because the terrorists are not an official government body. they adhere to no law nor rules of their own. they are not bound by the Geneva Convention because they are not official soldiers of any one government. The day those terrorist flew those planes filled with innocent people into buildings and turned them into weapons, they opened the doors to a whole new warfare. ones that don't care about the welfare of any citizen that happens to get into their way. the Government can tap my phones, they can look into any of my electronic messages, they can put me under survelance. and if that's what it takes to prevent 3000+ more innocents from dying. then so be it.

Journalists are not terrorists. Throughout time, they have safeguarded YOUR liberties. Kick them in the mouth if you want but, one day, you'll wish they had their teeth back.never equated Journalist with Terrorists. but people here have equated Journalist as Federal Agents as well as police. and one day you will wish those teeth had been pulled.

Wait.. let me get this straight. The govt is shown to be trying to make sure the press doesnt uncover any of its wrong doing and there are actually people whining about it? lol.
just as funny as people griping about the government going through their secret and private lives but not minding it that those who are suppose to keep that secret as well as other secrets willingly blab to others and sometimes are compensated monetarily for it.

just as funny as people griping about the government going through their secret and private lives but not minding it that those who are suppose to keep that secret as well as other secrets willingly blab to others and sometimes are compensated monetarily for it.


Would you mind saying that in a comprehendible way?

Would you mind sayign that in a comprehendible way?
simple. what is a "confidential source." or to put it simply... in media terms, what's a "Leak?"

just as funny as people griping about the government going through their secret and private lives but not minding it that those who are suppose to keep that secret as well as other secrets willingly blab to others and sometimes are compensated monetarily for it.
Unlike a private citizen public entities are not entitled to all the same rights or privileges. The government is not a person it has no inherent “rights”.

Comparing the two while expedient for your agreement only goes so far. The government is supposed to serve the people
The people have a right to know if the government is in fact serving them.

Would you mind sayign that in a comprehendible way?

Let's see---

Most people don't have any trouble with the press rifling through everyone's private lives, and publishing whatever they find, even if it's not true - as long as there was no "intent" to harm the person. No "malice aforethought".

This includes the press publishing crap stories about what the government may or may not be doing, even when they can't prove anything.

But, let the government survey call records and BOOM! - an uproar.

Usually, the people who don't have a problem with the press destroying people and institutions for fun on a daily basis in order to sell papers and increase ratings also equate the actions of terrorists with the actions of government - and choose hyperbolic comparisons as equalities.

Let's see---

Most people don't have any trouble with the press rifling through everyone's private lives, and publishing whatever they find, even if it's not true - as long as there was no "intent" to harm the person. No "malice aforethought".

This includes the press publishing crap stories about what the government may or may not be doing, even when they can't prove anything.

But, let the government survey call records and BOOM! - an uproar.

Usually, the people who don't have a problem with the press destroying people and institutions for fun on a daily basis in order to sell papers and increase ratings also equate the actions of terrorists with the actions of government - and choose hyperbolic comparisons as equalities.
Unlike a person the government is a public entity … its job is to serve its constituents not the other way around.

We get upset when this public entity works to control us rather then we control it (beyond people that break the basic necessary laws)

Unlike a private citizen public entities are not entitled to all the same rights or privileges. The government is not a person it has no inherent “rights”.

Comparing the two while expedient for your agreement only goes so far. The government is supposed to serve the people
The people have a right to know if the government is in fact serving them.


Exactly.

:fluffle:

Unlike a person the government is a public entity … its job is to serve its constituents not the other way around.

We get upset when this public entity works to control us rather then we control it (beyond people that break the basic necessary laws)

Yet we constantly refer to "the press" as some sort of public entity that claims to have a job to serve the public.

As such, if we're going to hamstring the government when it supposedly hurts people, I think the first thing we should do is provide the press with a few rules.

Publishing false stories - stories that even at the time may have been thought to be true, but were later proven to be false, should be punishable by an automatic life sentence.

Yet we constantly refer to "the press" as some sort of public entity that claims to have a job to serve the public.

As such, if we're going to hamstring the government when it supposedly hurts people, I think the first thing we should do is provide the press with a few rules.

Publishing false stories - stories that even at the time may have been thought to be true, but were later proven to be false, should be punishable by an automatic life sentence.

because it's nice to be irrational?

because it's nice to be irrational?
I see no difference between publishing false stories for political effect, or distorting public record (with no proof other than "some undisclosed sources" or "some disgruntled people who were appointed by the previous administration") and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire is a criminal act, and not protected by the First Amendment.

I see no difference between publishing false stories for political effect, or distorting public record (with no proof other than "some undisclosed sources" or "some disgruntled people who were appointed by the previous administration") and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire is a criminal act, and not protected by the First Amendment.

You really need to get some perspective. When a person yells "Fire!", he or she is doing so with the express intent of causing panic, disruption, and possible violence. Unless you can prove such intent in false stories, you can't call them the same thing.

Yet we constantly refer to "the press" as some sort of public entity that claims to have a job to serve the public.

As such, if we're going to hamstring the government when it supposedly hurts people, I think the first thing we should do is provide the press with a few rules.

Publishing false stories - stories that even at the time may have been thought to be true, but were later proven to be false, should be punishable by an automatic life sentence.

Interesting, but you know the whole "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" thang.

The government can not regulate or control the press, I see no such constitutional claim that proportes that the press can not report negatively on the government.

I see no difference between publishing false stories for political effect, or distorting public record (with no proof other than "some undisclosed sources" or "some disgruntled people who were appointed by the previous administration") and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire is a criminal act, and not protected by the First Amendment.


It is not illegal to yell fire ina crowded theater. It is perfectly permissable to yell fire when there is no fire but when I believe there is.

Intentionally yelling fire to cause panic and disruption is however legal. And if you can prove that the press intentionally lied, and for the express purpose of spreading falsehoods, then existing defamation laws already exist for that purpose.

You really need to get some perspective. When a person yells "Fire!", he or she is doing so with the express intent of causing panic, disruption, and possible violence. Unless you can prove such intent in false stories, you can't call them the same thing.
I believe the whole story leaked by that woman in the CIA falls into that category.

Funny, she's the only one who says it's true, and no one can find any evidence to the contrary. And all it's done is disrupt our foreign policy.

It is not illegal to yell fire ina crowded theater. It is perfectly permissable to yell fire when there is no fire but when I believe there is.

Intentionally yelling fire to cause panic and disruption is however legal. And if you can prove that the press intentionally lied, and for the express purpose of spreading falsehoods, then existing defamation laws already exist for that purpose.

Yes, but that takes all the steam out of the whine machine, when you have to consider such things.

Don't forget realitys liberal bias.

Interesting, but you know the whole "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" thang.

The government can not regulate or control the press, I see no such constitutional claim that proportes that the press can not report negatively on the government.
Oh yeah.. well.... well...
TERRORISM!
*runs away*

I believe the whole story leaked by that woman in the CIA falls into that category.

Funny, she's the only one who says it's true, and no one can find any evidence to the contrary. And all it's done is disrupt our foreign policy.

Oh yeah, that story with that woman, you know, that got leaked....yeah, I don't know which one you're talking about. Some specifics would be nice.

Even if you could prove she intentionally leaked information to disrupt foreign policy, you still can't blame the press for publishing it. They put out a story they believed was true without malicious intent, and regardless of the effects of that story, they remain blameless unless you have proof of malicious intent.

Oh yeah, that story that that woman, you know, that got leaked....yeah I don't know which one you're talking about. Some specifics would be nice.

Even if you could prove she intentionally leaked information to disrupt foreign policy, you still can't blame the press for publishing it. They put out a story they believed was true without malicious intent, and regardless of the effects of that story, they remain blameless unless you have proof of malicious intent.


Well he has his beliefs and for him that is enough when supporting his side of the argument. Facts schmacts.

Interesting, but you know the whole "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" thang.

The government can not regulate or control the press, I see no such constitutional claim that proportes that the press can not report negatively on the government.
and how is plugging the leaks from the CIA and other unoffical GOVERNMENT sources against free speech?

It is not illegal to yell fire ina crowded theater. It is perfectly permissable to yell fire when there is no fire but when I believe there is.

Intentionally yelling fire to cause panic and disruption is however legal. And if you can prove that the press intentionally lied, and for the express purpose of spreading falsehoods, then existing defamation laws already exist for that purpose.
Hmmm.... MemmoGate... oh "That's not lying. it was not verifying the facts" :rolleyes:
wasn't there a washington post writer as well as other newspapers writers who was found writing false stories for years? during the Katrina Decible?

Oh yeah, that story with that woman, you know, that got leaked....yeah, I don't know which one you're talking about. Some specifics would be nice.

Even if you could prove she intentionally leaked information to disrupt foreign policy, you still can't blame the press for publishing it. They put out a story they believed was true without malicious intent, and regardless of the effects of that story, they remain blameless unless you have proof of malicious intent.
and here you have someone making exscuses for the mistakes the press (the law enforment branch according to some, the people who should have access to everything according to others) makes. and notice the word blameless... :rolleyes:

the power you people give the press is truely more frightening than the rights you think the goverment is taking from them.

Hmmm.... MemmoGate... oh "That's not lying. it was not verifying the facts" :rolleyes:
wasn't there a washington post writer as well as other newspapers writers who was found writing false stories for years? during the Katrina Decible?

If you can prove he knowing lied, and such lying caused harm to the parties involved, let him be sued for defamation.

NY Times v. Sullivan

and here you have someone making exscuses for the mistakes the press (the law enforment branch according to some, the people who should have access to everything according to others) makes. and notice the word blameless... :rolleyes:

the power you people give the press is truely more frightening than the rights you think the goverment is taking from them.


Hey if you want tto go live in Iran where the Govt has absolute say over everyones lives and there is no freedom of the press then go for it (it sounds like a place that would make you happy since you have complete unwavering faith in the govt being all that is good and pure) but if you continue to fight against my freedom of speech and privacy, then you will certainly have a battle at hand.

If you can prove he knowing lied, and such lying caused harm to the parties involved, let him be sued for defamation.

NY Times v. Sullivan
didn't he write those stories making em up? what, he wanted to be a Fiction Writer and was practicing with the newspaper?

Prank calls to 911 are illegal, even if the INTENT was not to cause harm, but they are still Liable if harm happens.

Orson Wells was arrested for the War of the Worlds broadcast that caused mass panic. his INTENT was not to cause harm nor panic but panic did happen because of his broadcast.

and I believe there was another writer for the Washington Post as well as a San Fransisco Newpaper. gotta look for the stories.

and here you have someone making exscuses for the mistakes the press (the law enforment branch according to some, the people who should have access to everything according to others) makes. and notice the word blameless... :rolleyes:

the power you people give the press is truely more frightening than the rights you think the goverment is taking from them.

Well, the press has an amendment protecting its freedoms. The government doesn't.

Hey if you want tto go live in Iran where the Govt has absolute say over everyones lives and there is no freedom of the press then go for it (it sounds like a place that would make you happy since you have complete unwavering faith in the govt being all that is good and pure) but if you continue to fight against my freedom of speech and privacy, then you will certainly have a battle at hand.
you equate plugging government leaks with silencing the Media.

two different things mate. two different things.

Well, the press has an amendment protecting its freedoms. The government doesn't.where?

where in the amendment does the press have the right to have Government leaks?

where?

where in the amendment does the press have the right to have Government leaks?

First Amendment:

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

And of course the right of the press to leaks isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. It has the right to print free from governmental interference, and if what is being printed happens to be information taken from a government official leaking information, it is free to print that information.

First Amendment:

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

And of course the right of the press to leaks isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. It has the right to print free from governmental interference, and if what is being printed happens to be information taken from a government official leaking information, it is free to print that information.
and how is plugging leaks prohibiting free speech. is the media's only source of news leaks? no.
are they abriding free speech? no.
they are only stopping those who cannot keep secrets. those that signed a law saying they will keep secrets.

The government isn't stopping them from printing nor broadcasting their news. they can still broadcast and print their facts and their news stories.

any leaks they get they can print. but the person leaking classified information does not have a constitutional right to do so.

Moral right yes, but not a constitutional right.

so where again in the constitution is it the press's right to have government leaks?

and how is plugging leaks prohibiting free speech. is the media's only source of news leaks? no.
are they abriding free speech? no.
they are only stopping those who cannot keep secrets. those that signed a law saying they will keep secrets.

I never said anything about preventing a person from coming forward with government secrets. Those people who have signed a document which prevent them from revealing secrets are obliged to do so. They have voluntarily given up their right to divulge that informaiton without legal consequences.

However the nature of leaks is such that all information leaked is not classified, nor are all of the people who leak information under a written obligation to not leak. We cannot prosecute every person who leaks information to the press unless they were under such an obligation or unless the information was classified.

so where again in the constitution is it the press's right to have government leaks?

I never claimed press had a right to have leaks, I said they had the right to print information that may have been leaked. They do not bear the consequences of the actions of their source, but only the consequences of the story, which can be very difficult to prove in a court of law.

I never said anything about preventing a person from coming forward with government secrets. Those people who have signed a document which prevent them from revealing secrets are obliged to do so. They have voluntarily given up their right to divulge that informaiton without legal consequences. and my argument are about those people. those that did sign yet blab... the leaks.

However the nature of leaks is such that all information leaked is not classified, nor are all of the people who leak information under a written obligation to not leak. We cannot prosecute every person who leaks information to the press unless they were under such an obligation or unless the information was classified. and who makes that determination as to what is secret or not... the government.
I never claimed press had a right to have leaks, I said they had the right to print information that may have been leaked. They do not bear the consequences of the actions of their source, but only the consequences of the story, which can be very difficult to prove in a court of law.then we are at an understanding. I am not arguing for persuing the media, but the Leaks themselves.

there are others saying that the Leaks are vital for the media to do it's job. no it's not.

and my argument are about those people. those that did sign yet blab... the leaks.

and who makes that determination as to what is secret or not... the government.
then we are at an understanding. I am not arguing for persuing the media, but the Leaks themselves.

there are others saying that the Leaks are vital for the media to do it's job. no it's not.

Ah, good to reach a mutual understanding, then.

there are others saying that the Leaks are vital for the media to do it's job. no it's not.

I'd rather have the truth from a leak than be force-fed lies by the BBC.

I'd rather have the truth from a leak than be force-fed lies by the BBC.
:rolleyes: and how can you be sure that the leak is not another lie for the pupose of damaging a political rival or to push ahead another agenda?

:rolleyes: and how can you be sure that the leak is not another lie for the pupose of damaging a political rival or to push ahead another agenda?

I can't be at all, but I prefer to listen to somebody other than Blair and Co. now and again.

A democracy is supposed to be transparent. Does this mean we give out nuclear secrets and troop positions? Of course not. Does it mean that collecting mass data about american citizens should be? Yep. You think the terrorists didn't know that America watches the phone lines? Be reasonable. Ever heard of payphones and such?

In the 1970s new technology came out and wiretapping became a new issue. The administration and congress worked together to pass legislation to regulate the safe usage of such technologies. The Executive branch is currently working to set a precedent that they do not need to consult any other branches of government. Just because we can amass mass databases now doesn't mean that congress should not be able to address the issue and set reasonable limits. The issue is not just about the records it is the fact that the Executive branch is exceeding, and has been exceeding, it's power for a long time.

You do realize most of congress only found out about the NSA phone records through leaks to the press? When our own lawmakers are being kept in the dark by one portion of our government so that they are not even able to consider passing legislation for new technology that is a huge problem. The issue is much much larger than Bush or his administration. It is dangerously setting precedents that will damage this country for years to come.

And yes I'd rather have "secrets" such as illegal activity and blatent lying and the undermining of checks and balances leaked with the risk to security than not. I'd also rather be killed in a terrorist attack than lose what we're trying to protect anyways. But that's apparently just me.

I can't be at all, but I prefer to listen to somebody other than Blair and Co. now and again.
Just wanna be sure.

I would rather people take everything with a grain of salt. Me, I hold our procedures to work and when they don't it gets fixed.

and here you have someone making exscuses for the mistakes the press (the law enforment branch according to some, the people who should have access to everything according to others) makes. and notice the word blameless... :rolleyes:

the power you people give the press is truely more frightening than the rights you think the goverment is taking from them.

You go right on believing that, boyo.

I have heard conservatives scream about just how liberal the media is in the United States until I am sick to death of it. Let's attempt to be more correct, shall we?

Reporters as a group tend to be liberal (a generalization I realize, but it is fairly accurate).

Management and publishers tend to be conservative. (also a generalization, but also fairly accurate)

This used to be a balanced process between those two forces.

I am not going to waste my breath arguing how that has changed. It is a given.

But the media is decidedly less liberal than what conservatives bitch and moan about and it is certainly more conservative than what progressives and liberals want.

Until the neoconservatives stop crying about how abused they get, they won't get any sympathy from me.

The Press has a job to do in this country, and while I think it has been awfully lax and forgiving of this President, I'm not prepared to abandon the idea of the press providing a valuable check on government run amok.

I don't trust either Democrats or Republicans to tell me anything remotely resembling the truth unless they are FORCED to. So quit your whining JuNii, we got unfavorable coverage when we had power, so now it's your turn.

Suffer.

You go right on believing that, boyo.

I have heard conservatives scream about just how liberal the media is in the United States until I am sick to death of it. Let's attempt to be more correct, shall we?

Reporters as a group tend to be liberal (a generalization I realize, but it is fairly accurate).

Management and publishers tend to be conservative. (also a generalization, but also fairly accurate)

This used to be a balanced process between those two forces.

I am not going to waste my breath arguing how that has changed. It is a given.

But the media is decidedly less liberal than what conservatives bitch and moan about and it is certainly more conservative than what progressives and liberals want.

Until the neoconservatives stop crying about how abused they get, they won't get any sympathy from me.

The Press has a job to do in this country, and while I think it has been awfully lax and forgiving of this President, I'm not prepared to abandon the idea of the press providing a valuable check on government run amok.

I don't trust either Democrats or Republicans to tell me anything remotely resembling the truth unless they are FORCED to. So quit your whining JuNii, we got unfavorable coverage when we had power, so now it's your turn.

Suffer.another person missing the point.

I'm not against the media. but the leaks. I dont care who's leaking what. the fact that they are in a posistion to hold our national secrets and they are blabbing it out to anyone and everyone who will then post it for the world to read and no one cares.

they are holding positions that are supposed to be trustworthy yet those items that they are trusted to guard from prying eyes are being given away to be posted on the evening news.

I am not against the media publishing them. I'm against those who would give/sell/barter/trade that information to the media in the first place.

Me suffer? I'm not suffering.

another person missing the point.

I'm not against the media. but the leaks. I dont care who's leaking what. the fact that they are in a posistion to hold our national secrets and they are blabbing it out to anyone and everyone who will then post it for the world to read and no one cares.

they are holding positions that are supposed to be trustworthy yet those items that they are trusted to guard from prying eyes are being given away to be posted on the evening news.

I am not against the media publishing them. I'm against those who would give/sell/barter/trade that information to the media in the first place.

Me suffer? I'm not suffering.

No I am not missing the point.

I think it is abundantly clear where WE BOTH stand on this issue.

"Leaks" as a matter of course have always happened. The single largest group guilty of leaking to the press are politicians of both parties. Let me repeat that. Politicians are the single largest group of people who leak secrets to the press.

Do I like it? As a matter of fact I don't. Do I accept the fact that leaks are sometimes necessary to hold folks in government positions accountable for abuses that would not see the light of day otherwise? Yes, absolutely.

Are you taking a realistic stance on leaking? No.

We may agree on the root issue, but where you see all leaks as bad, I see some leaks as an occasional, deplorable necessity.

The Pentagon Papers were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. The uproar caused by the release of analytical papers pointing out that a war in Vietnam was likely unwinnable was an embarassment to the Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy Administrations. The NYT published the PP despite being ordered by the President's Attorney General (John Mitchell) to not publish. This eventually lead to the New York Times Co vs U.S decision where the US Supreme Court pointedly ruled in favor of the NYT.

Nixon was so anxious to discredit Ellsberg that he directed G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to break into Ellsberg's Psychitrist's office at the Watergate hotel, the whole thing was such a mess that eventually any case the government MAY have had against Ellsberg had to be dropped due to gross governmental misconduct.

If we had it your way, nothing like this would ever happen and Presidents and their adminstrations could do anything they wanted behind closed doors.

The irony is that Ellsberg tried to secure the legal release of the Pentagon Papers through several US Senators and was left with no option other than to give the story to the newpapers.

No I am not missing the point.lets see.

Time to break it down...

first your previous post...
You go right on believing that, boyo.

I have heard conservatives scream about just how liberal the media is in the United States until I am sick to death of it. Let's attempt to be more correct, shall we?when have I ever argued liberal or conservative on this subject?

Reporters as a group tend to be liberal (a generalization I realize, but it is fairly accurate).

Management and publishers tend to be conservative. (also a generalization, but also fairly accurate)and the stations care about the money that gets pulled in so they want people to watch their shows... Including the News. thus Liberal/conserative don't matter in the long run. it comes down to what the people want to watch. another generalization but also fairly accurate. and again, pointless because I never argued Liberal or Conserative points.

This used to be a balanced process between those two forces.

I am not going to waste my breath arguing how that has changed. It is a given.agreed. and not argued.

But the media is decidedly less liberal than what conservatives bitch and moan about and it is certainly more conservative than what progressives and liberals want.not anything I argued about but whatever...

Until the neoconservatives stop crying about how abused they get, they won't get any sympathy from me.fine, good for you... but for this topic, again you are arguing something I never claimed in the first place.

The Press has a job to do in this country, and while I think it has been awfully lax and forgiving of this President, I'm not prepared to abandon the idea of the press providing a valuable check on government run amok.a by-product but not a service that they were origially meant to provide. if they were part of the government, then they would have their own offices and branch in the system. they don't for they are not part of the Government. they keep the people informed. Yes, I never argued against that. They help keep the government honest. Yes, I never agrued against that either.

I don't trust either Democrats or Republicans to tell me anything remotely resembling the truth unless they are FORCED to. So quit your whining JuNii, we got unfavorable coverage when we had power, so now it's your turn.

Suffer.again you are bringing up parties. if you read in my earlier posts, I am for all leaks to stop. not just from Dem or Rep or any independants. but all leaks. from anyone who has the clearance to read government documents not cleared for the public. so your arguments are not supposed to be aimed at me. please try again...


Now moving onto your latest post.

I think it is abundantly clear where WE BOTH stand on this issue.I've made my position clear. To reiterate, I am not for gagging the Media... Just the Leaks.

"Leaks" as a matter of course have always happened. The single largest group guilty of leaking to the press are politicians of both parties. Let me repeat that. Politicians are the single largest group of people who leak secrets to the press.and read my posts again. I blame those who would leak information to the press. I did not single out anyone, nor did I narrow it down to only Politicians. I kept it to those who would leak information. so for this we are kinda in agreement.

Do I like it? As a matter of fact I don't. Do I accept the fact that leaks are sometimes necessary to hold folks in government positions accountable for abuses that would not see the light of day otherwise? Yes, absolutely.and the government has to do things they don't like either. yet we put them into that position, we gave them that power by electing them. they are the safeguards to not only national security, not only economic well being... but national Secrets as well.

Are you taking a realistic stance on leaking? No.quick humor break. my stance when I take a leak is realistic. :D ok, back to the seriousness. and a flawless, blameless Government that eveyone else expects and wants is also realistic? check the threads on this forum. People want the government to provide everything without the citizens donating or giving the Goverment anything to work with in return. you call that realistic? they want the government to provide 100% security, welfare and social reforms without raising taxes, cutting corners (fiscally and otherwise) and not inconviencing anyone. sorry, but my stopping Information leaks is a little more realistic.

We may agree on the root issue, but where you see all leaks as bad, I see some leaks as an occasional, deplorable necessity.and who makes that determination as to which information should be leaked and which doesn't. I'll bet you that you won't find anyone with a set of conditions that would satisfy everyone. unless you unilaterally remove the leaks.

The Pentagon Papers were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. The uproar caused by the release of analytical papers pointing out that a war in Vietnam was likely unwinnable was an embarassment to the Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy Administrations. The NYT published the PP despite being ordered by the President's Attorney General (John Mitchell) to not publish. This eventually lead to the New York Times Co vs U.S decision where the US Supreme Court pointedly ruled in favor of the NYT.

Nixon was so anxious to discredit Ellsberg that he directed G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to break into Ellsberg's Psychitrist's office at the Watergate hotel, the whole thing was such a mess that eventually any case the government MAY have had against Ellsberg had to be dropped due to gross governmental misconduct.yes and I agree with that. Once the NYT has the information, they can go forth and print it if they so desire. no matter how damning it is.

If we had it your way, nothing like this would ever happen and Presidents and their adminstrations could do anything they wanted behind closed doors.so you are saying that good old fashioned investigation reporting is possible only by people who cannot keep those self same secrets that they signed a contract... an agreement with the government that they would keep? if so, then I bring up Memmogate. papers leaked to the media that turned out to be false. but because they lacked the skills to verify the truth outside of leaks, the media took a huge hit to their integrety. add to that false stories of Katrina by several reporters who became so reliant on "Confidential Sources" that they couldn't verify what was true or not. this reliance on Leaks is damaging the media's abitlity to verify their facts. a point to argue that your Watchdog is getting blinded by the people who are supposidly helping them.

The irony is that Ellsberg tried to secure the legal release of the Pentagon Papers through several US Senators and was left with no option other than to give the story to the newpapers.so he tried to get an official release... and since he couldnt he took it upon himself to do something everyone said that he shouldn't. most everyone else I know who would try that would be arrested or at least be put in the wrong. but since it's a "Leak" that makes it excempt from official handling of documents as well as official procedures.

so you support the NSA grabbing all those phone records then and agree that it was legally done.

after all, ATnT and all those other companies did not obtain proper paperwork from the government. In fact, Qwest was the only one to demand a warrent in which the NSA said they probably wounldn't get. yet all those records were "leaked" by the holding Company's FREE WILL to the Government. thus making it legal on the NSA's part and acceptable in everyone's eyes.

now before you cry "Strawman argument" it is a perfectly mirrored action taken by Ellsberg. the only difference is that the New York Times published those Government documents and made a profit off of it while the Government didn't do the same with those phone records.

While I will accept your comment that you hate all leaks. and admit that stopping all leaks will be improbable. I would rather those who would leak information be chased and persecuted rather more drastic steps be taken... one that you will probably not like at all. as you implied... the lesser of two evils.

besides I would rather those Poli fat cats loose some weight by sweating and the media get back their investigative edge that they lost relying on all these leaks.

besides I would rather those Poli fat cats loose some weight by sweating and the media get back their investigative edge that they lost relying on all these leaks.

Here we agree.

And Daniel Ellsberg was EXPECTING to be prosecuted. He did not make his choice in a vacuum. In fact he was charged with treason. If Nixon had not been a vengeful, paranoid man who had to get his revenge, it is likely Ellsberg would have been prosecuted on a lesser charge after all the legal wrangling was over with.

The government's case was thrown out by the judge because they fouled their own nest with gross misconduct.

I believe this. If a person with a clearance has evidence of illegal governmental activity, they must be able to blow the whistle. Yes, it is likely the choice will result in some consequences for the whistleblower, but it does not mean they should not blow the whistle.

The press is the only outside organization that can, by printing the whistleblower's story, hold the government accountable. But this means that the press has a responsibility to verify facts, do the legwork and get independent verification in some manner for the story.

I too tire of the press writing stories from their desks and not doing the legwork. Unfortunately that is symptomatic of a greater malaise in the US

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart. 1799.