Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’m all for a free and independent media but the media is not given a free pass to endanger our national security...

What's the point of national security if you don't have any freedoms left to secure? A free press helps to maintain national security by keeping a check on the government. There are no safeguards to this sweeping "let's check everything we can find in the name of national security" attitude. National security is being used as a pretense for every single way the government can find to intrude in the lives of its citizens. It does not take much foresight to realize that an all-powerful, intrusive government will defeat the idea of a free state. Do you honestly think that this will not be used by the government to pressure and intimidate journalists to write and report favorably of the government? But, you are probably for this as well because "criticizing the government helps the terrorists win."

Yes, I am aware of that, however as you noted below, non of the revealed programs have been ruled as being illegal (and they aren't). So there has to be some enforcement of the laws to prevent people from disclosing any program they want for whatever reason or agenda they may have and then retroactively claim protection under some Whistle-Blower Protection Act. Also, the government is not using any illegal means to obtain the sources of these leaks, these leaks put our national security at risk hence why these means which may be viewed by some as extreme are necessary. I’m all for a free and independent media but the media is not given a free pass to endanger our national security without any repercussions whatsoever. I hope you can understand what I’m trying to say.

yea i get what you're trying to say, though the whole process still seems fishy to me.
it's like creating some intricate plan to break into a house, when you could just as eaisly use the unlocked front door.
unless, of course, you're afraid of being seen for some odd reason..

[edit on 15-5-2006 by karby]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, the government is not using any illegal means to obtain the sources of these leaks, these leaks put our national security at risk hence why these means which may be viewed by some as extreme are necessary.

This article doesn't say, we got subpoenas and warrants and found out who you're calling, while investigating the source of leaks. Even getting the name associated with a phone number, without a court instrument, may violate the law.

And its an assumption that the government is not using illegal means. Its a leap of faith that I'm certainly not willing to take.

Originally posted by karby
yea i get what you're trying to say, though the whole process still seems fishy to me.
it's like creating some intricate plan to break into a house, when you could just as eaisly use the unlocked front door.

Not really, the reporters may not be willing to divulge their sources for various reasons, in that case the government only has one option left. To use all its resources within the law to investigate and discover the source(s) of these leaks. However it seems to me that some people dislike the notion of the government investigating the source(s) altogether, and no matter what I say they will still believe that the government must be breaking some law, they simply must.

Originally posted by MrPenny
This article doesn't say, we got subpoenas and warrants and found out who you're calling, while investigating the source of leaks. Even getting the name associated with a phone number, without a court instrument, may violate the law.

The article say’s that the government is using call records to investigate the source of the leaks. You do not need a subpoena or a warrant to analyze call records, nor is investigating call records considered an invasion of privacy, according to the Supreme Court. The article also says that names or other identifying information is not being used, yet, to figure out the source(s).

If you don't think that the government will get the proper legal requirements before they try to figure out the actual identity of the source(s), fine, you are entitled to such a view. But you should not present your view as fact without any supporting evidence.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What's the point of national security if you don't have any freedoms left to secure? A free press helps to maintain national security by keeping a check on the government.

Please, lets not try to exaggerate, sensationalism never proves anything, your freedoms, and mines are still there. Now, I have one simple question, who maintains a check on the press?

Or should I be prosecuted for even hinting that the all powerful, all knowing, never corrupt, law abiding national press needs to be checked? You believe that without leaks and an intrusive media the government would become too corrupt, secretive and powerful, correct? However you want me to believe that the same is not true for an unchecked media!? Sorry, but the media is not some saintly utopian entity that some make it out to be.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Mrpenny
This does not make me feel more secure.

That's unfortunate, but the Patriot Act has been passed into law by Congress (twice) so as I’ve said before until/if ruled otherwise by the high court its provisions are legal laws.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Please, lets not try to exaggerate, sensationalism never proves anything, your freedoms, and mines are still there.

Yet the guarantee that they will be is not. Instead of being inalienable they have been granted to us with controls in place to easily take them away. That's a fact.

Now, I have one simple question, who maintains a check on the press?

There already is a check on the press. The same check that is on all of us each and everyday. They are subject to the same law enforcement as the rest of us. The same process can be undertaken with warrants and court orders as the rest of us. Yet, the government would like to claim that it is "preventing crime" by tracking who they call. Frankly, that's a bunch of BS, if they want to see who someone is calling, then get a court order.

Or should I be prosecuted for even hinting that the all powerful, all knowing, never corrupt, law abiding national press needs to be checked?

It is you who is advocating taking away the rights of citizens. The essense of maintaining civil liberties extends to everyone, so why do you think it would not extend to you?

You believe that without leaks and an intrusive media the government would become too corrupt, secretive and powerful, correct?

Frankly, yes. The government gives "secret" information to people who gladly leak it, yet feel threatened by introducing it to a judge to get a court order. The government is trying to take away accountability from itself and its workers.

However you want me to believe that the same is not true for an unchecked media!?

Never did I say unchecked media. Court orders and warrants. Read above.

Sorry, but the media is not some saintly utopian entity that some make it out to be.

Obviously, I can name quite a few "media outlets" that are the essence of bad journalism.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Jamuhn]

Not too long ago, i was involved in an impassioned stance against the illegality of the government encroaching on our civil liberties. Some of the same folks here were for it then. Kind of interesting when, however, it begins to involve the big money groups like newspapers, television, radio, etc. wherein the reporters earn their bread and butter.

jsobecky! I still say that the end of where this is going isn't in sight yet and it will be very ugly when it gets here.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Instead of being inalienable they have been granted to us with controls in place to easily take them away. That's a fact.

No its not, there are no controls in place to ‘easily take them away’, what exists are measures that under circumstances would limit those rights. However this is nothing new, it has existed for a long time, nor is it something that's illegal, as it has been proven by precedent and court cases than such measures are in extreme case necessary.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Frankly, yes. The government gives "secret" information to people who gladly leak it, yet feel threatened by introducing it to a judge to get a court order. The government is trying to take away accountability from itself and its workers.

There are plenty of other ways to hold the government accountable, and there are other means by which you can investigate the government. Leaking secret programs to the national media which you think are illegal is stupid because you are doing more harm than good, and it should only be done as a last resort, or only when one is as sure as possible that a program is indeed illegal. Having said that however I am not for illegal disclose because someone just happened to not like the program, or happened to think it was illegal. When a program which lives may depend on is being revealed I’d like a bit more than just a “oh, my bad, I thought it was illegal, oops.”

Originally posted by Jamuhn
There already is a check on the press. The same check that is on all of us each and everyday. They are subject to the same law enforcement as the rest of us. The same process can be undertaken with warrants and court orders as the rest of us.

It has been established that they do not need a court warrant or court order to analyze call records, nor is the government looking at call records deemed an invasion of privacy.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Leaking secret programs to the national media which you think are illegal is stupid because you are doing more harm than good,

Can you give me an example of which of these "leaks" over the past several years have done more harm than good?

Aside from the obvious attempt to squeltch the whistleblowers within this administration, we have an attempt to control the media thru intimidation, an open admittal that they are being targeted for control.

So how long before this administration uses this data to undermine a campaign by an opposing political party?

A contributor to an election, could have phone records held against him if he/she was expecting a payback for that contribution... that could lead to an all or none, type of support (contributors usually hedge their bet, by contributing to both parties)
"uh, john doe corporation... we notice that you have been called by the democratic election committee... dont make us sopeana your bank records to see if you gave them money, you know if you did, that would make your chance of getting a return on your investment with us totally nil."

I can only estimate the horrid effect this could have on our country, and its democratic process, and lobbying restrictions...

I say it again,
If we give up all the freedoms that make us free, then we did the job for the terrorists...
without them firing a shot...

Once again, what the hell does our government think they are doing? does anyone still beleive that forcing reporters to reveal their sources (by hook, or crook) is a required measure on the war on terror? Got news for ya... the opposite is true...

Originally posted by MrPenny
Doesn't it make you nervous that a law enforcement agency has been apparently granted judicial powers? Read the first bold section carefully...the courts, or a judge, don't see the subpoena until, when?

Not at all, Congress has granted this authority to the executive branch, and the Supreme Court has established that investigating call records is not an invasion of privacy. If you think both the Congress and the Supreme Court are wrong, fine, just don't claim what the government is doing is illegal, because it clearly isn't.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Can you give me an example of which of these "leaks" over the past several years have done more harm than good?

Ah, that is difficult to prove beyond a doubt without information I cannot access, and without an event as a result. But I will say this though, releasing specific details of several classified programs which are aimed at stopping , or catching terrorist will inevitably help said terrorist. They watch TV too, and now as a result are now more aware of our techniques and measures. That is why I firmly believe that before any classified program which deals with national security is leaked the gains and risks have to be considered and seriously thought about. What has been gained by the leak of these programs? As far as I’m aware they are not illegal, controversial, perhaps, but not illegal. So what is the justification or reason behind their release? All that those leaks have done is undermine our efforts in the war on terror, and no, its not some BS line, its reality, the world isn't full of people that run around with flowers and lollipops. Furthermore, I do not support a mentality of false complacency because it may appear in the short term that these leaks have not have not done our efforts any harm. Accordingly, I do not support more classified programs being leaked because of the appearance that no grave consequences or repercussions can come of it. When the lives of thousands, or perhaps millions are on the line there better be a damned good reason in order for you to leak a classified program. As we all know, when you play with fire you will get burned, its only a matter of time, I just hope it isn't too late for us.

Originally posted by Toadmund
You see more and more desperation each day. It's like dissent is a jar of marbles, The jar of marbles falls off the shelf and they are trying to catch them all before they hit the floor.
Are they going to catch all their marbles, or are they going to cast a big net over the entire floor?

They are losing their marbles.

Desperation, you bet! Scary? YUP!

And they are looking for reporters sources, just another attempt to shut up the media and keep Americans in the dark. They don't want anybody to be a source of Anti-Bush regime info.
No addresses or names, just #'s? HA!!, they can get all the info they need, all that's needed is a computer and a keyboard.

It's an abuse of power, put these bums out to the curb!

i know what u mean- but don't ever use such a phrase as "put these bums out to the curb."

i know you've never been broke as a joke and cold, but still....
don't use that phrase again please.

Thanks for that, but I'm aware of the colorful past concerning some actions taken by the US government. But I must point out that the programs being leaked today do not appear to be illegal, nor has any evidence been presented stating that they are being used for more sinister reasons. You have a right to be weary of the government, however some people take it to the extreme when in my opinion its uncalled for and when there not much corroborating their stance.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thanks for that, but I'm aware of the colorful past concerning some actions taken by the US government. But I must point out that the programs being leaked today do not appear to be illegal, nor has any evidence been presented stating that they are being used for more sinister reasons. You have a right to be weary of the government, however some people take it to the extreme when in my opinion its uncalled for and when there not much corroborating their stance.

Yea, frankly I'm surprised more people aren't pointing out the real abuses and intimidations that have happened past and present. But, I must point out a couple things about these leaks occurring. One, is that the government can easily get a court order, such as with the recent case of Valerie Plame. Second, the government is trying to legalize these occurrences and their legality has not been fully established. The pretext for this "legalization" is that during the war on terror, the President can use (what seems to me like) any power he wants. The Patriot Act is another supporting document for these government activities which is still mired in controversy this day. So, I do not think this is a simple case of "legal" or not "legal" and eventually the Supreme Court and other lower courts will have to step in.

But wait! The government is not providing information to the courts as well as sidestepping court orders, so that does not seem to be possible either. As you see, the checks on an out-of-control government are rapidly declining because of the "war on terror."

Originally posted by sigung86
I still say that the end of where this is going isn't in sight yet and it will be very ugly when it gets here.

That may be the single most important concept of this whole thread. That thought is the reason I'm so against this 'encroachment' into our private lives. People ask, "How has your personal privacy been affected"?

And I think, "Get back with me."

Many people don't seem to be able to see where this is going and that it will eventually affect not only me, but them, too. No matter how people spin it or how many times they quote the 4th Amendment or how much we argue about this, it's going to come back and bite us all in the ass. All of us. Not just the 'bad guys'.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Toadmund]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by karby
yea i get what you're trying to say, though the whole process still seems fishy to me.
it's like creating some intricate plan to break into a house, when you could just as eaisly use the unlocked front door.

Not really, the reporters may not be willing to divulge their sources for various reasons, in that case the government only has one option left. To use all its resources within the law to investigate and discover the source(s) of these leaks. However it seems to me that some people dislike the notion of the government investigating the source(s) altogether, and no matter what I say they will still believe that the government must be breaking some law, they simply must.

Something important here that must be understood, if reporters can't protect their sources, well then the sources aren't going to talk.
This here is an efficient means to stop government whistleblowers, effectively crippling your ability to know what is going on behind the government curtains.
The Bush assministration is only trying to stop people from finding out about all their
misdeeds on the American people.

Don't talk, or we'll be talking to you!

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr

Originally posted by Toadmund


.......It's an abuse of power, put these bums out to the curb!

i know what u mean- but don't ever use such a phrase as "put these bums out to the curb."

i know you've never been broke as a joke and cold, but still....
don't use that phrase again please.

Relax, I meant those bums, not poor bums, big difference!
I meant no offense to the poor, in fact I am not exactly rich myself and I root for the poor folks.

so.....Lets put them (rich) knobs out of business!

Better?