It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: New law would outlaw anyone revealing US eavesdropping programs

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:36 PM
A new bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or a 1 million dollar fine for revealing eavesdropping programs conducted by US intelligence agencies
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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This bill would make it impossible for the US media in the future to discuss illegal eavesdropping programs. It will disallow government employees from whistleblowing on eavesdropping programs in violation of the Constitution of the United States (or even federal law). And it will set a precedant in eroding what a patriotic US citizen should be all about (upholding the Constitution and our citizens civil rights).

[edit on 10-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by intrepid]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by intrepid]

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:01 AM
I have only one thing to say: this is unconstitutional!! If something from the government is against the constitution or against us, we must know what it is.

This law allow dictatorship!!

I hope that there will always be heroes of liberty in organisation such as NSA,CIA and FBI if something is unconstitutional. They must say what is wrong regardless of laws from this dictatorship of Bush's administration!

Liberty for everyone and free speech!!! Those things are the most important things in the world. We don't want fake security that brings us patriot act, we want liberty and free speech that brings us the constitution!!

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Vitchilo]

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:05 AM
ATSNN members voted NO to this article citing bias. The truth hurts I guess. Are facts considered bias?

Maybe Bush and his fascist entourage are ATS members.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:58 AM
It would help your chances of an upgrade if you would read this. This is an important story, so it should fly if you follow the guidelnes to the letter.

Here's a good thread.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 05:40 AM

ATSNN members voted NO to this article citing bias.

I think it's because you refer to the eavesdropping as unconstitutional in the title and intro. I don't think it's been established yet whether it's unconstitutional, so people can claim your article is unfairly biased.

I personally think it probably is unconstitutional, and definitely illegal if it's found that any of the wiretapping targets had been submitted to the FISA court previously and denied. If this law is passed, it will effectively gag any further public information on this issue and we will never know what's really happening.

I can't vote "yes" if the story lead-in seems biased, but I won't vote "no".

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 05:41 AM
Welcome to the New World Order where we will do your thinking for you!!

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:07 AM
Interesting. A law designed to protect governments from being caught breaking their own laws. The very creation of this is admittence that they've been breaking it, just so long as people don't talk about it.. :shk:

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:10 PM
Well I cannot reedit the post because the editing privelage has expired.

If a moderator can change the title to "New law would outlaw anyone revealing US eavesdropping programs" and fix the introduction to "A new bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or a 1 million dollar fine for revealing eavesdropping programs conducted by US intelligence agencies" I would appreciate it. I think this article really needs to be posted on ATS.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:03 PM
ImplementOfWar the best way to do that is to U2U one of the moderators and ask them to make the edit for you. I would change my vote to YES if that one word was removed.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:10 PM
ahhh...what the hey, I voted yes....been on the other end of this thing, it's why I don't submit much of anything anymore. people are just too picky, although I agree, maybe the word "illegal" shouldn't be there. although, if you ask me, well, what was going on has a good chance of being found to be not abiding by the current laws.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:26 PM
New Year's Eave

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I think this article really needs to be posted on ATS.

I agree, and hope you can understand that "no" votes for bias aren't necessarily personal, but cast in defense of ATSNN editorial standards.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with expressing any opinion you want to below the quotation, but the headline and lead-in should be factual.

I voted "no" for bias for that reason, but with the changes you have specified, I would gladly vote "yes".

Just sayin'.


posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:41 PM
This thread is clearly a "yes" vote, because this story is about an important subject that merits discussion.

It should not be relevant where and how the ATS member posting the article expresses his opinion. The included one to three paragraphs provide a more than adequate overview of the article content, so the ATS member summary is redundant.

My reason for coming to ATSNN is to discuss the relevant news of day and the nitpickers are making my ability to do this increasingly less satisfying by killing important articles with "no" votes over petty spelling and gramatical errors or bias issues.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:52 PM
The post has been reedited. Bias title and introduction removed. Feel free to vote YES now. I think it deserves ATS news.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:22 PM
My God, an article as important as this, and all these prominent posters discussing why it should or shouldn't be voted up.
I happen to agree with most of you however regarding the bias, and furthermore, it is poorly sourced, as in it could use more corroborating sources, could reference other ATS threads, and could use a more complete intro paragraph.

But can we get onto the actual topic please? Majic, what's your take on the subject? Grady?

This is ringing Patriot Act bells to me. And especially the secrecy part of the Act. One by one, it seems to me that this administration is trying to close up every last possible legal loophole to operate unchecked, and with total impunity. Why would this extreme degree of secret control be necessary? Are the existing laws not enough?

Keep clinging on to your last hopes that this administration has only the best of intentions for the American people, oh conservative ones. And just rip up the Constitution while you're at it. Because with more legislation like this coming down the pike, what the hell good is a system of adecuate checks and balances when there are none? You that would bestow upon this administration these rights are just as at fault as they are.

I'm glad these reporters got to this story BEFORE the legislation has passed. Cause if they tried to report on it afterwards, guess what? 15 years and/or a million greenbacks. And we never would have heard about it. Keep going oh mighty ones, you're on a roll.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:26 PM
nice to see u.s loves it people to jail them up when they have a right to know.oh well enjoy darth varder as he takes over the death star.the force is not with you luke lol.......

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:41 PM
I'm still getting alot of NO votes because of bias. I hope everyone realizes that the paragraph after the quoted article can contain opinions, bias or not. I hope that isnt what is making people vote NO. Only the title and introduction need not be bias.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:43 PM
Going back to the original source, I find appalling that the American people will be allowing the Government to go as far as this.

People this bill will make illegal to tell us the people anything that the government is doing.

That means illegal doings as well.

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.

Where is the outrage for something like this!!!!!!!!

Anybody that agree with a bill like this are also fond of dictatorships and totalitarian powers.

Wake up America we are now turning into a dictatorship to benefit the privilege.

This is what the Bush administration is all about.

Government and their cronies can brake the law and we the people are not allowed to know.

"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.

This has nothing to do with national security but for the incredible powers that the government of Mr. Bush is giving Itself.

Sorry to bring this to any American that care but our own constitution is becoming a crime to national security.

Why? because the bill is actually unconstitutional.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:49 PM
Sandra Day O"Conner is right. We are fast approaching dictatorship.

I am honored she agrees with me. Baby steps towards dictatorship.

This will teach all those who wanted this administration.

I told you so-

[edit on 11-3-2006 by dgtempe]

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:53 PM
DG I agree with you one hundred percent the woman knows what she is talking about and she better hurry up and tell us exactly what is going on because she will be on gag order very soon.

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:54 PM
If the program is found to be unconstitutional, any laws regarding its protection would be null and void. Until that time, the bill makes perfect sense. Everyone should relax.

[edit on 2006/3/11 by GradyPhilpott]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in