Enough of these anonymous sources! Looks like someone is finally taking the Constitution seriously. Reporters have an obligation to not compromise our national security just to sell a newspaper.

<!-- STORIES --> <table border="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted
May 21 10:43 AM US/Eastern

(http://www.breitbart.com/cgi/email_story.cgi) </td> <td align="right"> http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif </td> </tr> </tbody></table> WASHINGTON

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Attorney+General+Alberto+Gonzales%22&sid=breitbart.com) said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22national+security%22&sid=breitbart.com).
The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name as well as the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program.
Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22New+York+Times%22&sid=breitbart.com) should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.
He also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources.
"We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22court+order%22&sid=breitbart.com)," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard.
But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22free+press%22&sid=breitbart.com) should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."
"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 (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22federal+government%22&sid=breitbart.com) to go after criminal activity," Gonzales told ABC's "This Week."

Enough of these anonymous sources! Looks like someone is finally taking the Constitution seriously. Reporters have an obligation to not compromise our national security just to sell a newspaper.

It will be wonderful when we finally have a cold war era, Soviet-styled "state run" news source. Just curious, what happens when blogger start "reporting" this stuff?

Seriously, what leaks have legitimately compromised national security. The most egregious act in recent memory was committed by the Bush administration in outing a CIA agent...

It will be wonderful when we finally have a cold war era, Soviet-styled "state run" news source. Just curious, what happens when blogger start "reporting" this stuff?

Seriously, what leaks have legitimately compromised national security. The most egregious act in recent memory was committed by the Bush administration in outing a CIA agent...

We can argue the Plame thing from both sides but that should'nt fog up the whole issue. There actually have been some exposures of programs and laymen have no way of guaging the damage to national security. Our opinions are all colored by our particular views of this adminstration.

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Last time I checked this was still the law of the land...although I have to admit I havn't had a chance to check yet this morning to see...

Nothing will signal the end of our nation more than the supression of the press in ANY form. Just to hear the words uttered...should make us all very sad.

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Last time I checked this was still the law of the land...although I have to admit I havn't had a chance to check yet this morning to see...

Nothing will signal the end of our nation more than the supression of the press in ANY form. Just to hear the words uttered...should make us all very sad.

It has been established that there are limits to what a free press may print. National security issues are not for publication and the reporter is not always best qualified to determine the damage that may be caused. These limits are within Constitutional boundaries.

It has been established that there are limits to what a free press may print. National security issues are not for publication and the reporter is not always best qualified to determine the damage that may be caused. These limits are within Constitutional boundaries.

We will agree to disagree...and I will beg off of this topic early. Too me, the press is the bulwark to ensure that we as a nation remain free. It is personal and history is littered with movements that began with these very statements to the contrary. No point in me arguing about it and quite frankly...it is too important for me to try to poke fun at those who disagree either.

so how does just knowing that a program exists harm national security? as long as you don't know the intricate details of how the thing works, how does it affect national security just knowing about it?

oh, yeah, the terrorists won't use their phones. any terrorist who doesn't think his phones might be monitored deserves to get caught. he's too stupid to breathe, let alone be a terrorist.

this administration won't even release the list of Congress members who have been briefed on the program, claiming it's "classified". what harm does it do just knowing which members of Congress have been briefed on it?

yep, round up the press and send them to GITMO. and Steam says it can't happen here. it's already well on its way to fruition.

We will agree to disagree...and I will beg off of this topic early. Too me, the press is the bulwark to ensure that we as a nation remain free. It is personal and history is littered with movements that began with these very statements to the contrary. No point in me arguing about it and quite frankly...it is too important for me to try to poke fun at those who disagree either.
Punish the leak not the medium.

We will agree to disagree...and I will beg off of this topic early. Too me, the press is the bulwark to ensure that we as a nation remain free. It is personal and history is littered with movements that began with these very statements to the contrary. No point in me arguing about it and quite frankly...it is too important for me to try to poke fun at those who disagree either.

We don't disagree on the importance of a free press but that freedom has never been all inclusive.

Punish the leak not the medium.

But said member of the press has an obligation to turn the person in.

But said member of the press has an obligation to turn the person in.

They do?

According to the law they do. However they can also sit it out in jail if they don't want to cooperate.

According to the law they do. However they can also sit it out in jail if they don't want to cooperate.

Not familiar with that law. Link?

If they are suppoened to testify on who their source was and they do not cooperate, they go to jail on contempt charges.

If they are suppoened to testify on who their source was and they do not cooperate, they go to jail on contempt charges.

True. Some have. I think the term is "Chilling Effect".

Not familiar with that law. Link?

http://foia.state.gov/eo12958/part4.asp

http://foia.state.gov/eo12958/part4.asp

Umm... did you read that? First off, that's an EO, not a law. Second, even if it were a law, it doesn't say anything about the press.

yeah it's wrong to do it to just sell a newspaper
but according to W,Cheney, Rove,Libby and Judith Miller it is okay to sell newspapers and wars of aggression

Umm... did you read that? First off, that's an EO, not a law. Second, even if it were a law, it doesn't say anything about the press.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798 Prev | Next

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ](1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

I love the freedom of the press, and I dont want to tie one hand behind their back.
At the same time classified efforts should not be revealed if they cause harm to our National Security.

This is a fine line I wouldnt want to walk on.

so how does just knowing that a program exists harm national security?
Every piece of information no matter how small or insignificant will be used by our enemies. It may not seem like much, but this was a momentous piece of Intel, and will alter the terrorist’s communications practices. This will make it increasingly difficult to monitor and track them.

Every piece of information no matter how small or insignificant will be used by our enemies. It may not seem like much, but this was a momentous piece of Intel, and will alter the terrorist’s communications practices. This will make it increasingly difficult to monitor and track them.

right....like if you were a terrorist you'd be stupid enough to use the same phone so that the govt would be able to track your call patterns. That's terrorism 101 for gods sake!

Every piece of information no matter how small or insignificant will be used by our enemies. It may not seem like much, but this was a momentous piece of Intel, and will alter the terrorist’s communications practices. This will make it increasingly difficult to monitor and track them.



Yeah... the boogeymen were too dumb to realize that someone might be tapping their phone. Give me a break. If we don't give them credit enough to not be complete morons, then I fear that we are vastly underestimating what real terrorists are capable of.

If we really wanted to put a stop to terrorism, or, at least, slow it down quite a bit, then we would look at our forign policies that created people who want to kill us in the first place. And no, it wasn't our freedom and love for everyone that made people want to kill us.




joe

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798 Prev | Next

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ](1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

There ya go. Glad to see you put forth some effort.

/The US Code is in my bookmarks

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information

uh Valerie Wilson and her storefront, Breuster Jennings.
so the pres, VP, and both their C.O.S. should all be doing time then.

I bet this hurt US Intel (including the chilling effect it had on CIA agents, or their mass exodus) than anything that has come out.

The issue you are having is you are confusing the admin with the country. The leaks they whine about don't hurt the country, it hurts them. exposing torture,secret gulags, warrantless wiretapping US citizens, illegal data miningm, etc... will only keep America closer to the "White Hat" side of the equation.

Every piece of information no matter how small or insignificant will be used by our enemies. It may not seem like much, but this was a momentous piece of Intel, and will alter the terrorist’s communications practices. This will make it increasingly difficult to monitor and track them.

and yet Bush can go on national television, and mention over and over again how porous our borders are. bet the terrorists had a field day with that one.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798 Prev | Next

§ 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ](1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Ok, now that I actually have some time to respond....

Go ahead and read the law as quoted above. Pay attention to the highlighted part in the beginning. It sure sounds to me like only the leakee is breaking the law.

Anyone have links to actual cases?

Ok, now that I actually have some time to respond....

Go ahead and read the law as quoted above. Pay attention to the highlighted part in the beginning. It sure sounds to me like only the leakee is breaking the law.

Anyone have links to actual cases?

did you read the part that said "or publishes or uses......"?

did you read the part that said "or publishes or uses......"?

Specifically, yes. The grammar is such that it reads the leak is the person violating the law. The press would only be in violation if prejudice could be proved "or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information".

So, rightly no problem nailing the leak. A different animal entirely going after the reporter. Which is probably why it doesn't happen often and is even more seldom successful.


I'm curious if the admin isn't in violation of this very law under section (c):

"Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof."

Didn't the admin refuse to furnish information about the program to the Congressional committee?

Specifically, yes. The grammar is such that it reads the leak is the person violating the law. The press would only be in violation if prejudice could be proved "or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information".

So, rightly no problem nailing the leak. A different animal entirely going after the reporter. Which is probably why it doesn't happen often and is even more seldom successful.


I'm curious if the admin isn't in violation of this very law under section (c):

"Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof."

Didn't the admin refuse to furnish information about the program to the Congressional committee?

I think you're splitting hairs on a bald head. This language is pretty straight forward. If secrets are printed that put the security of this country at risk, it is a crime. The only theing that might prove difficult would be if conviction required even more classified information exposed that would put things further in the crapper.

No, I don't think information was denied. The leadershop of the proper comittees was kept in the loop.

I think you're splitting hairs on a bald head.

That could be but there isn't a lot of case law out there proving me wrong.

That could be but there isn't a lot of case law out there proving me wrong.

The problem with this kind of prosecution would be that it would probably require much more exposure of the secret operations damaged. It could be worse than the initial exposure. In the past, the media was known to cooperate during times of national threat. I'm not so sure we can count on that anymore.

right....like if you were a terrorist you'd be stupid enough to use the same phone so that the govt would be able to track your call patterns. That's terrorism 101 for gods sake!

Never take your enemy for granted. "War 101" Bush took our enemy for granted, and look what it got him?

If we really wanted to put a stop to terrorism, or, at least, slow it down quite a bit, then we would look at our forign policies that created people who want to kill us in the first place. And no, it wasn't our freedom and love for everyone that made people want to kill us.
joeAs near as I can tell, the Muslim extremist want to kill us because of our western way of life. I'm sure both you and I dont want to change how we live, to appease them. If by "foreign policies" you mean people have wanted to kill us since the creation of Israel and our support for them, then your right.

On top of this, I am more then willing to acknowledge America has made many mistakes over the years, but we have done some darn good things too. There are still many people abroad who love us.

There ya go. Glad to see you put forth some effort.

/The US Code is in my bookmarks

My point was not to prove you wrong, just to show you some info I've come across in the past.

and yet Bush can go on national television, and mention over and over again how porous our borders are. bet the terrorists had a field day with that one.

Your deviating from the point of the thread. Stay focused now…This is about leaking classified information and the punishment for those who leak it.

Ok, now that I actually have some time to respond....

Go ahead and read the law as quoted above. Pay attention to the highlighted part in the beginning. It sure sounds to me like only the leakee is breaking the law.

Anyone have links to actual cases?

Most gov officials sign non-discloser agreements, or are under some type non-discloser agreement, under a larger contract. Where the press comes in brings up great debates.

What are their obligations as citizens of America? What if said member of the press in a citizen of another country?

I’m all for holding the gov officials accountable. You cant blame the press for wanting to publish a juicy story. They are drawn to good stories like sharks to blood in the water.

but you claim that the information leaked has effected our security. show evidence of that.

and if that has effected our security, what's the effect of the president broadcasting to the world in a public forum that we can't secure our borders? he should be arrested for aiding and abetting the terrorists.

but you claim that the information leaked has effected our security. show evidence of that.
I really shouldn’t have to prove to you what is known as common sense. I’ve stated my case effectively and without bias.
If you care to show me how divulging classified material has NO effect on our nation’s security, then I’m all ears.

What's the effect of the president broadcasting to the world in a public forum that we can't secure our borders? he should be arrested for aiding and abetting the terrorists.
Again, (2nd time now) can you stay focused on the topic? I’m beginning to think you don’t know the difference between classified and unclassified information.

classified yes. but knowing of the existence of a classified program is different than knowing the classified deatils about how that program operates, and the resources(both human and technological) it uses, and the results it has achieved. you've yet to show how just knowing about the existence of something is harmful to america's security. example, how does knowing that America is maintaining secrert prisons in Europe harmful to our national security?

surely, it can't be as harmful as causing the end of an operation investigating Iran's nuclear program.

if you can't show how it is, then i'll just have to accept your rhetoric as just bluster. none of this "well you just have to know that it does" bullsh^t.

The real problem is that it is too easy to conflate executive secrecy with national security. The publication of the Pentagon Papers would be harshly penalized under the AG Gonzales interpretation, but today most people look back on it as responsible journalism. Any administration which finds itself in hot water will retreat to declarations of national security if it provides a means to fend off the press.

I'm not insinuating that President Bush has done anything illegal. I think we need to imagine the impact of this 25 or 50 years down the road. Secrets and sunshine don't mix, and we are at crossroad where we choose whether or not to have an open society.

if you can't show how it is, then i'll just have to accept your rhetoric as just bluster. none of this "well you just have to know that it does" bullsh^t.
Unauthorized disclosures damage our intelligence relationships abroad, compromise intelligence gathering, jeopardize lives, and increase the threat of terrorism.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON

"Information obtained from captured detainees has revealed that al Qaeda operatives are extremely security-conscious and have altered their practices in response to what they have learned from the press about our capabilities. A growing body of reporting indicates that al Qaeda planners have learned much about our counterterrorist intelligence capabilities from U.S. and foreign media."
CIA Memo, June 2002

“I was amazed—and Moscow was very appreciative—at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers. In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier.”
Stanislav Lunev, former Russian GRU officer (military intelligence)

“And let me give you a specific example why, in our democracy and in our open system, it is vital that certain information remain secret. In 1998, for example, as a result of an inappropriate leak of NSA information, it was revealed about NSA being able to listen to Osama Bin Ladin on his satellite phone. As a result of the disclosure, he stopped using it. As a result of the public disclosure, the United States was denied the opportunity to monitor and gain information that could have been very valuable for protecting our country.”
White House press spokesman Ari Fleisher

You cant touch this :)

(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
That's word because you know
You can't touch this (oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
You can't touch this (oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
Break it down!
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)

Stop! Slammer time! :)

don't have any knowledge of the first two, but i know the third point is pure BS. it has been firmly established that Osama had stopped using his Satphone long before any leak about the NSA listening in appeared in newspapers.

and again, there is a difference between knowing details, and just the knowledge that programs exist. and there certainly is a difference between classified legal methods of gathering intelligence, and unlawful government activities concealed from public knowledge under the veil of "classified information".

through numbers of couriers. All the stuff that has been leaked would only hurt them if they were idiots. They are not. They orchestrated a multiplane suicide mission on numbers of targets.

finally, so if you are so outraged, why not the same about Plame and Breuster Jennings?
They were a covert op doing intel on Iranian nuke develoment until W and CO. blew their cover.

don't have any knowledge of the first two, but i know the third point is pure BS. it has been firmly established that Osama had stopped using his Satphone long before any leak about the NSA listening in appeared in newspapers.

and again, there is a difference between knowing details, and just the knowledge that programs exist. and there certainly is a difference between classified legal methods of gathering intelligence, and unlawful government activities concealed from public knowledge under the veil of "classified information".

Here are the links I used.

http://www.rtnda.org/news/2000/ractvall.shtml
http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Quotes_Leaks.htm

Your more then welcome to add a link to the story you say was debunked, as I would like to read it.

I'm done debating with you, because like Pres Bush, you seem to be unable to concede your point of view.

Unauthorized disclosures damage our intelligence relationships abroad, compromise intelligence gathering, jeopardize lives, and increase the threat of terrorism.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON

"Information obtained from captured detainees has revealed that al Qaeda operatives are extremely security-conscious and have altered their practices in response to what they have learned from the press about our capabilities. A growing body of reporting indicates that al Qaeda planners have learned much about our counterterrorist intelligence capabilities from U.S. and foreign media."
CIA Memo, June 2002

“I was amazed—and Moscow was very appreciative—at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers. In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier.”
Stanislav Lunev, former Russian GRU officer (military intelligence)

“And let me give you a specific example why, in our democracy and in our open system, it is vital that certain information remain secret. In 1998, for example, as a result of an inappropriate leak of NSA information, it was revealed about NSA being able to listen to Osama Bin Ladin on his satellite phone. As a result of the disclosure, he stopped using it. As a result of the public disclosure, the United States was denied the opportunity to monitor and gain information that could have been very valuable for protecting our country.”
White House press spokesman Ari Fleisher

You cant touch this :)

(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
That's word because you know
You can't touch this (oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
You can't touch this (oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
Break it down!
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)

Stop! Slammer time! :)

ANYONE, and I mean anyone, who thinks that security through obscurity is a valid option is a facking moron. ALL of the examples above are examples of security holes in communications systems and they've been discussed openly for years within the various industries. That your cellphone calls can be listened in on by anyone with brains and a laptop is NOT, in any way, a revalation of national security.

What a joke.

ANYONE, and I mean anyone, who thinks that security through obscurity is a valid option is a facking moron. ALL of the examples above are examples of security holes in communications systems and they've been discussed openly for years within the various industries. That your cellphone calls can be listened in on by anyone with brains and a laptop is NOT, in any way, a revalation of national security.

What a joke.

Who brought up obscurity? I certianly didnt. Where are you coming from with the name calling? You sound upsett, are you alright? Do you need a hug? I gave you factual references and you try to attack me? Some people just dont get it. Without democracy, Darwinism would have taken people like you out a long time ago.

What a joke ;)

I don't believe we are at any crossroads. Look what happened during both World Wars and we are still here. The First saw Wilson and Congress enact the Espianoge Act resulting in sanctions against many publications. The Second was internment camps and congressional hearings. The Nation endured and still thrives. This boogieman theme the left is promoting is a replay of that era.

Espionage Act of 1917 imprisoned many individuals for up to 10 years for making nothing more than off handed comments. It was an abomination and if I recall people were just recently still being relieved of the stigma of being branded a traitor for talking.

The interrment of Japanese Americans was a blight that continues to haunt the consciesness of many of those that suffered through the camps for being nothing more than considered yellow and therefore incapable of being real americans.

The country does not thrive because of those moments it thrives despite of those moments because the aggrieved are not to be forgotten and the wrongs are government did are not to be excused. People because of racism or jingoism or both sat on their hands and allowed the government "of the free" to persecute and imprison Americans because America allowed them to. Learning from those incidents...no one should ever be so cavalier as to say that ...it can't happen here.

Glad to see you agree with me that we are surviving and thriving in spite of what happened.

Are there no such things as traitors? Is there no reason to guard our National Security? I do remember someone named Bennedict Arnold.

I do remember someone named Bennedict Arnold.

Ahh....eggs benedict....hollandaise sauce. MMMMMMMMM

I make perfect poached eggs!

Glad to see you agree with me that we are surviving and thriving in spite of what happened.

Are there no such things as traitors? Is there no reason to guard our National Security? I do remember someone named Bennedict Arnold.

Now I can go back to ignoring you. Since you prefer not to read what I wrote and infer an alternate context than what was so obviously intended.

/gave it a shot
/will try not to make the mistake of thinking we could have rational discourse again.

Who brought up obscurity? I certianly didnt. Where are you coming from with the name calling? You sound upsett, are you alright? Do you need a hug? I gave you factual references and you try to attack me? Some people just dont get it. Without democracy, Darwinism would have taken people like you out a long time ago.

What a joke ;)

Did I point the finger at you? You should only be offended if you believe in the policy.

As for your last sentence.... LOL. Go read a book sometime.

easily done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html

got anything else, Mr. Foxnews?

Well, since we "are still here" then everything is just fine. Lock up the dissidents and shut down the presses -- all that matters is whether we are "still here" for the next 8 year plan.

I'm astonished at how security trumps everything else. Back when I was a Conservative I firmly believed it wasn't the job of society to make me safe. While I don't sanction espionage, I value freedom of speech over nanny-state interpretations of security.

I don't believe we are at any crossroads. Look what happened during both World Wars and we are still here. The First saw Wilson and Congress enact the Espianoge Act resulting in sanctions against many publications. The Second was internment camps and congressional hearings. The Nation endured and still thrives. This boogieman theme the left is promoting is a replay of that era.

You know what though, if it wasn't for people like us screaming at the top of our lungs, things would not have reverted. Be thankful that some of us refuse to bend over.

Gee that really hurts. You do know that not only Japanese were interned during WW2, don't you? Hey FDR was an American hero. Gofigya!

easily done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html

got anything else, Mr. Foxnews?

Thanks for the link Rufus, your the heat!!! :)

Hey FDR was an American hero.

Not in my book.

Not in my book.

FDR was a hero to most but he never meant Sh@@ to KenB. :D

FDR was a hero to most but he never meant Sh@@ to KenB. :D

LOL. Different thread. I was never a big FDR fan. Something about his attempt to pack the SC just never sat well with me. Plus that whole Japanese internment thing. Then there's the gross expansion of the executive branch.... And, I think he gets too much credit for "ending the depression".

You all know that the Japanese were not the only people to be interned during the War. Greman and Italian immigrants were not only interned, but many were forced to leave their coastal homes in California without compensation. Many others were arrested for violating curfews imposed only on Italians and Germans. They were to not speak the language of their origin for fear of being branded the enemy. For some reason only the Japanese has officiall be appologized to and compensated. I guess the Germans and Italians that were effected by this treatment were white and as such probably deserved it in some measure. :rolleyes:

Nothing close to this is happening today. You are right that vigilance is necessary to ensure it doesn't, but the victriol is over done.

http://z.about.com/d/italian/1/0/Y/internment.jpg

LOL. Different thread. I was never a big FDR fan. Something about his attempt to pack the SC just never sat well with me. Plus that whole Japanese internment thing. Then there's the gross expansion of the executive branch.... And, I think he gets too much credit for "ending the depression".

On his plus balance sheet he did save much of the world from fascism, authoritarianism and ruthless dictatorship. :)

You mean the US gets credit for doing some good? Man times certainly have changed.

You all know that the Japanese were not the only people to be interned during the War. Greman and Italian immigrants were not only interned, but many were forced to leave their coastal homes in California without compensation. Many others were arrested for violating curfews imposed only on Italians and Germans. They were to not speak the language of their origin for fear of being branded the enemy. For some reason only the Japanese has officiall be appologized to and compensated. I guess the Germans and Italians that were effected by this treatment were white and as such probably deserved it in some measure. :rolleyes:

Nothing close to this is happening today. You are right that vigilance is necessary to ensure it doesn't, but the victriol is over done.

http://z.about.com/d/italian/1/0/Y/internment.jpg

Yes, I'm aware of the rights violations of many different Americans during the war. They were gross and unnecessary. It's sad that during the one time we were actually invaded we didn't toss the Constitution out the window. Nor did we (at least the Union didn't) trample the rights of the People during the Civil War. Plenty of opportunities to toss large portions of the Bill of Rights during both conflicts on our soil, yet we didn't. Instead, we sought to broaden civil rights (and did).

The so called "War against terror" pales in comparison to either of those conflicts.

I agree that we could do with less vitriol and partisan BS.

Nor did we (at least the Union didn't) trample the rights of the People during the Civil War. Plenty of opportunities to toss large portions of the Bill of Rights during both conflicts on our soil, yet we didn't. Instead, we sought to broaden civil rights (and did).

The so called "War against terror" pales in comparison to either of those conflicts.

I agree that we could do with less vitriol and partisan BS.

Yer kiddin' me right? Really, seriously, you are kidding no?

Yer kiddin' me right? Really, seriously, you are kidding no?

Unfortunitly he's not...

Yer kiddin' me right? Really, seriously, you are kidding no?

Got sources?

Nor did we (at least the Union didn't) trample the rights of the People during the Civil War. Yer kiddin' me right? Really, seriously, you are kidding no?Got sources?

Taken from this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Civil_War_and_Reconstruction


During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade), suspended the writ of habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus), spent money without congressional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States) authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 Confederate sympathizers without trial. Congress approved his actions.

Taken from this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Civil_War_and_Reconstruction


During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade), suspended the writ of habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus), spent money without congressional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States) authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 Confederate sympathizers without trial. Congress approved his actions.

LOL! Kendle, man, really you should try reading the Constitution at least once. LMAO.

With the exception of spending money without authorization (and that's questionable), nothing you listed (in fact two are the same thing really) are out of bounds of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, they are well within the rights of the President as defined in the Constitution.

Wanna try again?

In fairness, I'll call on TMB to help you in this thread if he cares to. I guarantee he'll pull no punches if I'm out of line in my claim.

LOL! Kendle, man, really you should try reading the Constitution at least once. LMAO.

With the exception of spending money without authorization (and that's questionable), nothing you listed (in fact two are the same thing really) are out of bounds of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, they are well within the rights of the President as defined in the Constitution.

Wanna try again?

In fairness, I'll call on TMB to help you in this thread if he cares to. I guarantee he'll pull no punches if I'm out of line in my claim.

Gee Kenny you cant admit your wrong? It's ok to admit it, no one here will think any less of you. So you're saying the Union did not trample the rights of the people during the war?

Gee Kenny you cant admit your wrong? It's ok to admit it, no one here will think any less of you.

I will be the FIRST to do so if I am. By all means, this should be an easy one to prove one way or the other.

Just curious, do you know why the suspension of habeas corpus and the subsequent imprisonment of 18000 doesn't count?

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15746

The Civil War

The Civil War witnessed a similar assault on press freedoms and civil liberty. President Abraham Lincoln seized the telegraph lines, suspended habeas corpus and issued an order prohibiting the printing of war news about military movements without approval. People were arrested for wearing Confederate buttons and for singing Confederate songs.<SUP>6 (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15746#f6)</SUP>

Government officials shut down the Chicago Times for excessively criticizing the Lincoln administration. Editors were arrested, papers closed and correspondents were banned from the fields of battle.<SUP>7 (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15746#f7)</SUP> A military governor with the approval of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton destroyed the office of the Washington, D.C., newspaper, the Sunday Chronicle.

Prominent Democratic politician Clement L. Vallandingham was arrested for making an anti-war political speech at a party rally in Mount Vernon, Ohio. After his conviction by a military tribunal, he was sentenced to prison. However, President Lincoln changed the punishment to banishment to the Confederate states.

I will be the FIRST to do so if I am. By all means, this should be an easy one to prove one way or the other.

Just curious, do you know why the suspension of habeas corpus and the subsequent imprisonment of 18000 doesn't count?

William Tecumseh Sherman, under direct control of President Abraham Lincoln, who took great pride in his close supervision of the war. He was a constitutional absolutist:rolleyes: , like many here as it seems. Go read how he protected the constitutional rights of law abiding civilians all over the Carolinas and Georgia.

William Tecumseh Sherman, under direct control of President Abraham Lincoln, who took great pride in his close supervision of the war. He was a constitutional absolutist:rolleyes: , like many here as it seems. Go read how he protected the constitutional rights of law abiding civilians all over the Carolinas and Georgia.

Hmmm... so by that standard, the Iraqi insurgents should be afforded the full protection of our laws under the Constitution? They are the enemy, right? As was the CSA. IIRC, it tool a little while before the Conferderate states were granted entry back into the Union. During the war, they had no rights under the Constitution, they were the enemy.

Just curious, do you know why the suspension of habeas corpus and the subsequent imprisonment of 18000 doesn't count?

Wild guess...:rolleyes: While suspension of habeas corpus is constitutionally granted to the Congress, The POTUS, as Chief Executive has powers to execute necessary business while they are in recess. IIRC suspension of habeas corpus was congressionally approved upon return to session. I'd like to know how imprisionment of 18,000 Americans doesn't count but monitoring communication crossing our borders is a constitutional travesty???

I'd like to know how imprisionment of 18,000 Americans doesn't count but monitoring communication crossing our borders is a constitutional travesty???

One was legal the other isn't.

Hmmm... so by that standard, the Iraqi insurgents should be afforded the full protection of our laws under the Constitution? They are the enemy, right? As was the CSA. IIRC, it tool a little while before the Conferderate states were granted entry back into the Union. During the war, they had no rights under the Constitution, they were the enemy.

How is that possible??? The war was over the Union assertion that they had no right to secede. Please explain how if they had no right to secede, how they could loose their Constitutional rights? Civilain farmers in North Carolina, women and children in Columbia, South Carolina were stipped of their constitutional rights and hence had no more rights than cattle? You do know that Sherman persecuted civilians relentlessly?

How is that possible??? The war was over the Union assertion that they had no right to secede. Please explain how if they had no right to secede, how they could loose their Constitutional rights? Civilain farmers in North Carolina, women and children in Columbia, South Carolina were stipped of their constitutional rights and hence had no more rights than cattle? You do know that Sherman persecuted civilians relentlessly?

If they were always part of the Union then why did they need to be readmitted to the Union after the war? They were the enemy. They had no more claim to the protection of the Constitution than Iraqi insurgents do now.

Find some violations in Union states.

If they were always part of the Union then why did they need to be readmitted to the Union after the war? They were the enemy. They had no more claim to the protection of the Constitution than Iraqi insurgents do now.

Find some violations in Union states.

You're in agreement then that the South was within their rights and it was a war of Union agression?

You're in agreement then that the South was within their rights and it was a war of Union agression?

Eh. I flip flop on it. Usually, TMB smacks me down though when I start arguing in favor of the south.

Eh. I flip flop on it. Usually, TMB smacks me down though when I start arguing in favor of the south.

He'll be all over this one at some point. :)

One was legal the other isn't.

So because congress approved the violations of Amendment V and VI it was legal?

They were the enemy. They had no more claim to the protection of the Constitution than Iraqi insurgents do now.

Find some violations in Union states.

But they were Americans which the Union wanted to keep as Americans...seemingly. Let me see if I'm hearing this right, if the United States Government decides you are an enemy, you have no claim to Constitutional protection?

But they were Americans which the Union wanted to keep as Americans...seemingly. Let me see if I'm hearing this right, if the United States Government decides you are an enemy, you have no claim to Constitutional protection?

I would say it depends. If you renounce your citizenship, cede from the Union and wage bloody war against your former government and country.... yeah, I'd say you've pretty much given up your right to claim protection under the Constitution.

If, however, you live in a place called, let's say Ruby Ridge, and are doing nothing illegal but the US Government decides you're the enemy and kills members of your family without warning or provocation, then I'd say your Constitutional rights are being trampled.

So because congress approved the violations of Amendment V and VI it was legal?

The people of the South renounced their citizenship, formed a new government and constitution of their own and waged war on their former country. They had no rights under the Constitution. If you can argue for their rights, you should be arguing for the rights of the detainees in Gitmo and the rights of the insurgents in Iraq.

He'll be all over this one at some point. :)

That's my hope.

Eh. I flip flop on it. Usually, TMB smacks me down though when I start arguing in favor of the south.

The 2 constitutional arguments used by the South are pretty easily refuted.

As Farber notes...

"“[t]he basic flaw in the secession argument is its failure to recognize a key aspiration of the Constitution: to replace a regime of multilateral negotiation with the democratic rule of law . . . . Instead of multilateral negotiation by sovereign states, the Constitution called for nationwide democratic institutions and authoritative dispute resolution by the federal courts.”

and

"One could either argue that the nation was formed by a compact among sovereign states or that individual states could choose to revoke their ratification of the Constitution and leave the Union.Farber rejects the compact argument because of a lack of evidentiary support for the position that the states are “the exclusive receptacles of sovereignty” such that each has total control over its participation in the Union, like sovereign nations bound by a treaty"

If the South broke with the constitution...then Lincoln under his oath (an oath that we seem to have replaced with Security first) was bound by that oath to bring back the precocious youths of the south.

The people of the South renounced their citizenship, formed a new government and constitution of their own and waged war on their former country. They had no rights under the Constitution. If you can argue for their rights, you should be arguing for the rights of the detainees in Gitmo and the rights of the insurgents in Iraq.

"I do renounce him" (said by Michael Corleone).

The South through a system of state conventions (the same type that ratified their inclusion in the union) to opt out of the system. Lincoln was forced to play both sides of the fence. They had no constitutional right to do so, but he still had to use military force to bring them back. Part of this was political (Lincoln could have ill afforded to have foreign power recognize the south) and part out of necessity. But at the same time he had to wage war against the South as insurrectionists...but use war to do so.

You know what though, if it wasn't for people like us screaming at the top of our lungs, things would not have reverted. Be thankful that some of us refuse to bend over.
Believe me, we will thank you for help to the enemy after the next terrorist attack. Think of someone other than yourself for one second for a change...

Believe me, we will thank you for help to the enemy after the next terrorist attack. Think of someone other than yourself for one second for a change...

That's pretty weak but I guess it's the best you have to offer.

It's never been about me... it's always been about my kid and her future for she will inherit the mess we're in right now, not me.

The 2 constitutional arguments used by the South are pretty easily refuted.

As Farber notes...

"“[t]he basic flaw in the secession argument is its failure to recognize a key aspiration of the Constitution: to replace a regime of multilateral negotiation with the democratic rule of law . . . . Instead of multilateral negotiation by sovereign states, the Constitution called for nationwide democratic institutions and authoritative dispute resolution by the federal courts.”

and

"One could either argue that the nation was formed by a compact among sovereign states or that individual states could choose to revoke their ratification of the Constitution and leave the Union.Farber rejects the compact argument because of a lack of evidentiary support for the position that the states are “the exclusive receptacles of sovereignty” such that each has total control over its participation in the Union, like sovereign nations bound by a treaty"

If the South broke with the constitution...then Lincoln under his oath (an oath that we seem to have replaced with Security first) was bound by that oath to bring back the precocious youths of the south.

Thanks for your input in these threads. :)

Regardless of how I can sometimes sympathize with the south and how I'm pretty big on state's rights, I always come down on Abe's side -- he had to preserve the Union.

I shudder to think what the current cadre running the show right now would do in a similar situation.

Thanks for your input in these threads. :)

Regardless of how I can sometimes sympathize with the south and how I'm pretty big on state's rights, I always come down on Abe's side -- he had to preserve the Union.

I shudder to think what the current cadre running the show right now would do in a similar situation.

Then you can quit sympathizin' cause da' Sutheners was not about states riats'

Potter does a good job showing this (Impending Crisis). That it was the South not the North that was moving away from states rights and moving towards federal intervention. They pushed for Federal authority (Federal Marshals) to enforce the fugitive slave law, the backed Dredd Scott over popular sovereignty, they asked for federal assurances for slavery and they pushed for the expansion of slavery into federally operated territories. So you see...it wasn't about states rights for the South, but it was a myth that the southern writers pounded the country with after they lost, as they established the "lost cause" or "noble cause" myth. But much like the German "stabbed in the back" myth...there was really no reality behind it.

This Pottuh, was he a Noathun sympathysuh or was he an honest southuhn histoahian? Youah pahticulah view seems to have a noathun slant, suh.

This Pottuh, was he a Noathun sympathysuh or was he an honest southuhn histoahian? Youah pahticulah view seems to have a noathun slant, suh.

Potter was born in Augusta, Ga. Undergrad Emory University (Phd from Yale) and he even taught for a couple of years at the University of Mississippi. Southern Born Southern Bred. His research went a long way to shed long standing myths.