PDA

View Full Version : Reporters will be persecuted for reporting the president breaking the law


dementieva's fan
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:34 AM
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002157186
Published: March 10, 2006 8:00 PM ET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodluck with the dictatorship, America :tape:

Pheobo
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:43 AM
Remember when we used to be anti-communist and and self righteous "freedom fighters"? :p


...Well...we're still self righteous assholes. :lol:


This is actually very scary.

hablo
Mar 16th, 2006, 02:19 AM
shocking :eek:

drake3781
Mar 16th, 2006, 03:06 AM
I just hope we can get back to normal after eight years of this insanity.

A lot of things are going to be nearly impossible to recover from, at least in my lifetime.

CJ07
Mar 16th, 2006, 03:09 AM
that bill makes sense. Why are you going to disclose all the information to the terrorists?

Pheobo
Mar 16th, 2006, 03:12 AM
that bill makes sense. Why are you going to disclose all the information to the terrorists?


But there's going to be terrorists no matter what...and we can't just not have freedom of press. It's goes against the amendment.

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Remember when we used to be anti-communist and and self righteous "freedom fighters"? :p


...Well...we're still self righteous assholes. :lol:


This is actually very scary.
Oh please, what about the reporters who were prosecuted such as Judith Miller. i don't see you complaining about this. Also what is wrong in being anti communist. I think what you were referring to was the extremities of the mCarthist era.

alfonsojose
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Good Night and Good Luck :scared:

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2006, 01:50 PM
Good Night and Good Luck :scared:
why thanks but it is only afternoon here for me. :lol:

John A Roark
Mar 16th, 2006, 02:06 PM
Settle down, people: no court will render any verdict save one that nails a reporter who actually discloses information about an ongoing program that is already protected by existing statute.
E.G.:
Jane Doe, reporter for the Washington Times, learns that there is an actual surveillance operation going on under the provisions of the set-up as it exists. So long as the surveillance is ongoing and the information she discloses compromises that operation--whether she thinks it's illegal or not--she'll get hung for it, plain and simple. As she should.

But to make remarks about something past? or something previously disclosed by the government? Fair game, and I can't see a judge penalizing her for that.

Wigglytuff
Mar 16th, 2006, 03:20 PM
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002157186


Goodluck with the dictatorship, America :tape:
i'm not shocked, bush and his supporters have ALWAYS supported dictatorships at home and aboard...afterall he's the dictator president and one should never question the dictator president is what they have been saying from day one...

Pheobo
Mar 16th, 2006, 05:45 PM
Oh please, what about the reporters who were prosecuted such as Judith Miller. i don't see you complaining about this. Also what is wrong in being anti communist. I think what you were referring to was the extremities of the mCarthist era.

Being a communist myself I tend to become frustrated at anti-communist antics :p

That's beside the point though. This is a Bush-bashing thread.

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Being a communist myself I tend to become frustrated at anti-communist antics :p

That's beside the point though. This is a Bush-bashing thread.
But Communism can be a good thing. I like nations like Belarus and China today. Belarus hardly has any unemployment and China has been able to expand its economy thanks to ruling through an iron hand of its government. North Korea too would be in my good books if it was not so paranoid and scared of the West which has other demons to fight in the Middle East. So I am like you, I want governments to have a strong hand unlike in countries France right now where the government is powerless to do anything against some of the students who are bitching about for nothing. The CPE contract is for the young poor immigrants and those who are protesting are from the elite mostly.

This is not about Bush bashing but whether or not Journalists should be allowed to do whatever they want to which like Communists I say that this should not be the case. By the way, one of my favourite politicians when I was young was Stalin. :devil:

But then again Comunism was still mostly a failure because command economy did not encourage any innovation and nations based on communism and consisted of various nationalities collapsed such as USSR.

Wigglytuff
Mar 16th, 2006, 07:18 PM
hmmmm china, because human rights are over-rated.... :smash:

-Ph51-
Mar 16th, 2006, 07:24 PM
that bill makes sense. Why are you going to disclose all the information to the terrorists?
:haha: